PDA

View Full Version : D&D 5e/Next Structural Class Changes (Mana, Talents, Clear gish structure)



Pages : [1] 2 3 4

Kryx
2017-11-12, 10:46 AM
I've been working on new design which has the following goals:

Align all spellcasting classes to use short rest recovery mechanics. This will encourage short rests and significantly alter the external balance between pure martials and casters so that casters canít simply cast all of their spells in 1 encounter.
Use mana (spell points) instead of spell slots for all spellcasting classes.
Provide less duplication and more clarity to a userís character choice by providing a base class and archetypes (Mage -> Wizard/Magus, Acolyte -> Cleric/Paladin).
Allow more customization of classes via perks
Bring consistency to class progression. The 3 tiers of spellcasting are more defined (6 mana: Wizard/Cleric/Druid/Sorcerer/Warlock/etc, 3 mana: Magus/Paladin/Ranger/Shapeshifter/Hexblade/Monk/etc, and 2 mana: Rogue subclasses). Class features come at more consistently defined levels.


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

Thanks for any feedback provided.

Terra Reveene
2017-11-12, 03:32 PM
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.

If you need a new name to replace either the Sorcerer class or the spellcaster name you could try 'Thaumaturge' (workers of wonder, magician), 'Medium' (from 'an intervening substance', since magic is a part of them (although this could be confused with someone able to see ghosts)), or you could just use the name 'Warlock'. There really aren't that many different names for spellcasters I'm afraid. Or, well, there are, but the vast majority of them aren't exactly applicable.

EDIT: 'Magician' is another one, although that might be too bland. That and it might conflict with the name 'Mage'. 'Witch' might work as well. 'Diabloist' is a person who can perform sorcery (might be exactly what you're looking for!), to name a few more.

EDIT2: Page 105, the ranger has Primal Strike page 110 the circle of the primeval claw gains Primal Strike. They use the same name. You might wwant to change the latter to 'Primeval Strike' to match the name of the circle.

EDIT3: I've noticed things such as the Paladin smites increases damage per additional mana spent rather than each additional spell level. Is this the case for all the spells as well? If I cast burning hands spending 13 mana, will I get 11d6 more damage?

Kryx
2017-11-12, 05:25 PM
Hey, thanks for taking a look.


If you need a new name to replace either the Sorcerer class or the spellcaster name you could try 'Thaumaturge' (workers of wonder, magician), 'Medium' (from 'an intervening substance', since magic is a part of them (although this could be confused with someone able to see ghosts)), or you could just use the name 'Warlock'. There really aren't that many different names for spellcasters I'm afraid. Or, well, there are, but the vast majority of them aren't exactly applicable.

EDIT: 'Magician' is another one, although that might be too bland. That and it might conflict with the name 'Mage'. 'Witch' might work as well. 'Diabloist' is a person who can perform sorcery (might be exactly what you're looking for!), to name a few more.
I've found all of these names and rejected them for various reasons:


Thaumaturge "is the capability of a magician or a saint to work magic or miracles". It'd be more appropriate for a divine class
Medium is basically another name for psionics
Warlock has become known to be associated with the occult. It is one of the options, but not all encompassing.
Magician is already covered by the mage
Witch is quite niche
Diabolist is associated with devils. One subclass in our case

I considered some like Spellbinder or other names, but none really fit. I'll likely keep Sorcerer for both the class and the caster archetype.


EDIT2: Page 105, the ranger has Primal Strike page 110 the circle of the primeval claw gains Primal Strike. They use the same name. You might wwant to change the latter to 'Primeval Strike' to match the name of the circle.
Circle is now named "Circle of the Claw" and the magical attacks named "Primal Claw".


EDIT3: I've noticed things such as the Paladin smites increases damage per additional mana spent rather than each additional spell level. Is this the case for all the spells as well? If I cast burning hands spending 13 mana, will I get 11d6 more damage?
Spells should scale via the normal progression. 2,3,5,6,7,9,10,11,13 works quite well. I should adjust Arcane Strikes, Smites, Primal Strikes, and Psychic Strikes to be explicit of the cost to increase.

Ninjadeadbeard
2017-11-13, 03:24 AM
What page is your Mana system on? I can't seem to find it. Might need to sleep, so maybe I'm just having trouble.

Kryx
2017-11-13, 03:54 AM
What page is your Mana system on? I can't seem to find it. Might need to sleep, so maybe I'm just having trouble.
Each class with spellcasting (Acolyte, Mage, Minstrel, Naturist, Psionicist, Sorcerer) has Mana listed in their class features and has a archetypes with the amount of mana listed on those tables.

It's spell points with a more thematic name. This version uses short rest recovery.

SkyWriter88
2017-11-14, 04:13 PM
I think that the "Kiss of Mephistopheles" Hexing Blade option should be renamed to "Blasting Hex", the reason being that to have the option be named after "Mephistopheles" is to kind of bind it to the Fiendish Sorcery Origin, rather than keeping it Origin neutral, as I think it should be, but that is just my take. Also, you goofed up on Page 14 of your draft, I can't see half the page. You also goofed up the format of the Celestial Sorcerous Origin on Page 141. I will also see what I can find in the way of alternate names for either the Sorcerer class or its full-caster archetype.

SkyWriter88
2017-11-14, 04:16 PM
And now for something completely different...a question, and that question is: could this "Mana" system be applied to the Monk, as it currently exists somewhere between a half-caster and a non-caster, which can sometimes get confusing?

Kryx
2017-11-14, 04:58 PM
I think that the "Kiss of Mephistopheles" Hexing Blade option should be renamed to "Blasting Hex", the reason being that to have the option be named after "Mephistopheles" is to kind of bind it to the Fiendish Sorcery Origin, rather than keeping it Origin neutral, as I think it should be
Agreed with a more netural name for Kiss of Mephistopheles. I'll make the change in the next release.


Also, you goofed up on Page 14 of your draft, I can't see half the page. You also goofed up the format of the Celestial Sorcerous Origin on Page 141.
I'll fix these formatting issues in the next version, thanks


And now for something completely different...a question, and that question is: could this "Mana" system be applied to the Monk, as it currently exists somewhere between a half-caster and a non-caster, which can sometimes get confusing?
Monk, by RAW, is essentially a half caster. It could, potentially, allow for for a full caster, but that's be a lot of effort and possibly not the best design. Several problems:

Monk powers all of his abilities via ki, not just spells
Spell list size is currently very very limited. Doing it like I do the other classes would open up the options immensely (in a bad way imo)
Monks are a mix between martial and spellcaster. They have 6 talents instead of 8 to account for the extra class features. A caster could probably keep 6, but it's definitely tricky.

I think #1 and #2 prevent it from being a reality. Otherwise it could probably work.

You also mentioned Hexblade power in a PM. There is a comparison on page 34. Hexblade should be comparable to the other melee casters. Armored Husk is just the same as the scale prof of the other classes, but more flavorful. Compared to the Ranger it has less mana attacks and regains hp when it crits or kills the hexed target. Should be comparable unless I'm missing something.

Thanks for the feedback!

SkyWriter88
2017-11-17, 04:18 PM
Another note about the yet-to-be-named "Blasting Hex", and that is the spell in question. The way you have the the "Martial Magic" effects of the other half-casters allows them to be weapon neutral (melee or ranged), but "Blasting Hex" doesn't fit that. Having fireball be cast on a creature you hit with a bonded, melee weapon is just plain suicide, funny, but suicide. I haven't been able to come up with a good alternative, but I really don't think that the way it is now is a viable feature.

EDIT: What I meant by "suicide" was intended more for other melee-focused allies, but I see that the way I typed it originally suggested that I was referring to the Hexblade themselves.

Kryx
2017-11-17, 04:26 PM
Another note about the yet-to-be-named "Blasting Hex"
It was previously worded to not include you in the area.

Though it has already been replaced with more suitable options:

Blinding Hex. When you hit a creature cursed by your hex feature with your bonded weapon you can expend 5 or more mana to cause your weapon to become wreathed in shadow. The attack deals an extra 3d8 necrotic damage, plus an additional 1d8 for 6 mana and 7 mana. Additionally, the target must succeed on a Fortitude (Constitution) saving throw or be blinded for 1 minute or until you lose your concentration (as if you were concentrating on a spell).

A creature blinded by this makes another Fortitude (Constitution) saving throw at the end of each of its turns. On a successful save, it is no longer blinded.

Hindering Hex. When you hit a creature cursed by your hex feature with your bonded weapon you can expend 1 or more mana to hinder the target further. The target must make a Will (Charisma) saving throw against your sorcerer spell save DC. Whenever a target that fails this saving throw makes an attack roll or a saving throw before 1 minute or until you lose your concentration (as if you were concentrating on a spell), the target must roll a d4 and subtract the number rolled from the attack roll or saving throw.

Kryx
2017-11-18, 10:37 AM
Changes:

I've split the Sorcerer and Warlock again. I think there is enough difference to warrant two classes. The Occultist will focus on the secrets aspect of the Warlock fluff. The Occultist will have the Warlock and Hexblade archetypes. The Sorcerer will have the Sorcerer and a yet-to-be-determined martial archetype. There will be some crossover in their subclasses and talents, but not all.
Eidolon moved to only be available for the Occultist
Occultist is an intelligence based caster
Spells updated for XGtE
Minstrel's Magical Secrets removed as the concept fits the Occultist much better. Added Bardic Performance to the Minstrel in place of Melodic Inspiration. They can use it for a variety of effects. It also replaces several subclass 3rd level features.


I'll need to decide on the martial archetype for the Sorcerer or cut it. If anyone has suggestions (Ideally from some old PF/D&D source) I'd be curious what you have in mind.

Ugganaut
2017-11-19, 12:34 AM
Talents: Just hoping for some clarification, i think I missed all the changes. Originally I think you got one at 1st, 5th and 9th character level. Now it looks class dependent, minimum level 3.
Humans got Determination and a bonus Talent instead of a bonus feat. I really liked this, in particular the 1st level and human bonus, because I made Lineage traits. For example, there was Elven, Orc or Draconic bloodline, which gave Darkvision, but little or no other physical changes. Then Elven Ancestry which required the Elven Blood trait, and gave you Fey Ancestry racial(so only available to Humans, as they are the only ones that had two traits at level 1). That way Half-Elf and even Half-Orc didn't need to be a completely separate race. I know that's just me though.
I was wondering if humans still got a bonus Talent, and if it was restricted to General or something?


Occultist is an intelligence based caster
Why was that? Getting power handed to you doesn't seem intelligence based.

Trying to focus on the Sorcerer at the moment, but its taking some time jumping back to Occultist to find the origins.
Some of the 1st level features of the various Patrons/Origins are...boring, for lack of a better term. And a little underpowered.
Almost all have something really interesting. Some have a broad language(Sylvan, Celestial), and then an addition little ability that sets you apart from most(don't need sleep, don't need food, etc).
Sea, Stone and Storm however, only have language(+adv). The language is also extremely limited. Unless you are lucky, or the DM is kind, there is a good chance it will never come into play unless you summon a creature that can speak that language.
Sea could get free waterbreathing and/or swim speed. Storm could ignore vision and/or movement penalties due to wind/rain. Stone could ignore difficult terrain caused by rough/slippery earth.

Kryx
2017-11-19, 05:39 AM
Talents: Just hoping for some clarification, i think I missed all the changes. Originally I think you got one at 1st, 5th and 9th character level. Now it looks class dependent, minimum level 3.
You're talking about traits. Traits are not talents and traits are gone. Talents are basically Feats + Invocation type power ups for each class. ASIs no longer give feats.

Talents are one of two progressions:
2-8: Generally a spellcaster with limited features in the class
1-6: Generally a martial with many features built into the class


I was wondering if humans still got a bonus Talent, and if it was restricted to General or something?
Humans previously got a bonus trait. The latest races document published about a week ago contains the updated human:

Ability Score Increase. Your ability scores each increase by 1.
Age. Humans reach adulthood in their late teens and live less than a century.
Alignment. Humans tend toward no particular alignment.
The best and the worst are found among them.
Size. Humans vary widely in height and build, from barely 5 feet to well over 6 feet tall. Regardless of your position in that range. your size is Medium.
Speed. Your base walking speed is 30 feet.
Determined. When you make an attack roll, an ability check, or a saving throw, you can reroll the roll, but before any effects of the roll are applied. Once you use this ability, you canít use it again until you finish a short or long rest.
Skilled. You gain a proficiency in a skill of your choice.
Subrace. Many subraces of human are found on golarion. Choose one of these subraces.

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


Why was that? Getting power handed to you doesn't seem intelligence based.
https://www.sageadvice.eu/2017/01/16/why-are-warlock-charisma-casters/
Some general quotes on the PHB Warlock:

Warlocks are seekers of the knowledge that lies hidden in the fabric of the multiverse.
Drawing on the ancient knowledge of beings ... warlocks piece together arcane secrets to bolster their own power.
Warlocks are driven by an insatiable need for knowledge and power ...
Your arcane research and the magic bestowed on you by your patron have given you facility with spells.
In your study of occult lore, you have unearthed eldritch invocations, fragments o f forbidden knowledge that imbue you with an abiding magical ability.

If you feel Charisma is the better choice for your group then feel free.

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


Trying to focus on the Sorcerer at the moment, but its taking some time jumping back to Occultist to find the origins.
I realyl wanted to avoid duplicating the subclasses to both.


Some of the 1st level features of the various Patrons/Origins are...boring, for lack of a better term. And a little underpowered.
Almost all have something really interesting. Some have a broad language(Sylvan, Celestial), and then an addition little ability that sets you apart from most(don't need sleep, don't need food, etc).
Sea, Stone and Storm however, only have language(+adv). The language is also extremely limited. Unless you are lucky, or the DM is kind, there is a good chance it will never come into play unless you summon a creature that can speak that language.
Sea could get free waterbreathing and/or swim speed. Storm could ignore vision and/or movement penalties due to wind/rain. Stone could ignore difficult terrain caused by rough/slippery earth.
There is a comparison on page 154. 1st level features, across all classes, are meant to be minimal benefits to not front-load the classes. They are meant to be rather minimal as the classes get subclass features, archetype features, and spellcasting (page 31 details the progression of each).

Also keep in mind that each subclass gets a cantrip at 1st level.

These buffs should cover it though:

Sea: Additionally, you are unhindered by nonmagical difficult terrain caused by water, and your vision is unhindered by any obscurement caused by moisture in the air or wind.
Stone: Additionally, you are unhindered by nonmagical difficult terrain caused by dirt or unworked stone.
Storm: Additionally, you are unhindered by nonmagical difficult terrain caused by water, and your vision is unhindered by any obscurement caused by moisture in the air or wind.

Ugganaut
2017-11-19, 07:23 AM
You're talking about traits. Traits are not talents and traits are gone.
Ah yes. Shame.



If you feel Charisma is the better choice for your group then feel free.
Either/or by the looks.


These buffs should cover it though:

Sea: Additionally, you are unhindered by nonmagical difficult terrain caused by water, and your vision is unhindered by any obscurement caused by moisture in the air or wind.
Stone: Additionally, you are unhindered by nonmagical difficult terrain caused by dirt or unworked stone.
Storm: Additionally, you are unhindered by nonmagical difficult terrain caused by water, and your vision is unhindered by any obscurement caused by moisture in the air or wind.
Yep, looks perfect.

Kryx
2017-11-19, 07:29 AM
Ah yes. Shame.
There only a handful and they were basically existing feats that weren't strong enough. Those few were upgraded or changed to warrant them fitting into the talent box (effectively a half feat).

Kryx
2017-11-19, 10:27 AM
I made the sorcerer martial a "Battle Sorcerer" per http://www.d20srd.org/srd/variant/classes/variantCharacterClasses.htm

Though it's a bit bland and perhaps the transforming direction set by the playtest is the better choice.

Ugganaut
2017-11-19, 11:40 AM
Suffused Sorcerer:
Level 1 - Ritual Casting, Full Caster.
Level 2 - Empowered Cantrips

Battle Sorcerer:
Level 1 - 2 Cantrips, Shield prof.
Level 2 - Weapon Bond, Armored Husk, Spellweaving, Fighting Stance, Spellbound Strike.
At level 1, the Battle Sorc is quite subpar, it has no 1+ spells and no features. Like a fighter with no armor prof, no second wind, no fighting stance, but two cantrips. If they are Str based, then their AC will be horrible, probably just the +2 from shield.
At level 2 its very heavy on the features.

I'd suggest moving Resilient/Armored Husk to the Archetypes, so they both get it at level 1(the way other classes get their armor, or Unarmored Defense).
And I'd move Spellweaving to level 1 for Battle Sorc, as its the core of its combat.

Kryx
2017-11-19, 12:23 PM
Armored husk is only meant for the Battle Sorcerer. It is also not available to Occultists. Thos reasons and it being equivalent to armor proficiency are why it is where it is.

I can't move Armored Husk earlier due to the structure of all classes. Waiting 1 level isn't so bad.


And I'd move Spellweaving to level 1 for Battle Sorc, as its the core of its combat.
Spellweaving is too strong for 1st level. The same is true for a Mage and Psionicist which have very similar abilities. Martial DPR jumps at 2, which is why this is at level 2. D&D 5e delayed features from 1st level and I follow that trend.


Comparisons:
1st level:
Cleric: 16 AC, shield possible. 1 spell. Ritual Casting. Simple Weapons. 3 cantrips.
Wizard: ~12-13 AC. 1 spell. Ritual Casting. Simple weapons. 3 cantrips.
Suffused Sorcerer: ~12-13 AC. 1 spell. Ritual Casting. Simple weapons. 3 cantrips.

Paladin: 16 AC, shield possible. 0 spells. Martial Weapons. 2 cantrips.
Battle Sorcerer: ~16 AC, shield possible. 0 spells. Martial Weapons. 2 cantrips.
Magus: ~16 AC, shield possible. 0 spells. Martial Weapons. 2 cantrips.

2nd level:
Cleric: 2 spells, Empowered Cantrips
Wizard: 2 spells, Empowered Cantrips
Suffused Sorcerer: 2 spells, Empowered Cantrips

Paladin: 1 spell, Fighting Stance, Smite, Channel Divinity: Lay on Hands, Turn the Faithless, or Guided Strike
Battle Sorcerer: 1 spell, Weapon Bond (fluff, minor utility), Spellweaving (damage similar to hunter's mark/hex, but scales), Fighting Stance, Spellbound Strike (with 2 mana)
Magus: 1 spell, Weapon Bond (fluff, minor utility), Arcane Channeling (damage similar to hunter's mark/hex, but scales), Fighting Stance, Arcane Strike (with 2 mana)

Ugganaut
2017-11-19, 12:27 PM
Armored husk is only meant for the Battle Sorcerer.
I meant move them to their respective archetypes. Suffused would get Resilient, Battle would get Armored.

Looks like the changes work nicely.

Kryx
2017-11-19, 12:29 PM
I meant move them to their respective archetypes. Suffused would get Resilient, Battle would get Armored.
I edited the above - couldn't move it as desired.

Perhaps I can use your method and remove the 2nd level feature on the sorc.... hmm..

Giegue
2017-11-19, 12:39 PM
I like this quite a bit, but one thing still saddens me....death clerics still are not as good at reanimating the dead as mages (wizards), and in such a customizeable system I feel there should be more than one option to make an undead minion-master/other classes beyond mage/wizard should be able to be good at it if built to do so. While you can do whatever you want with this, I'd personally either add a cleric talent that gives them undead bonuses comparable to the mage/wizard's, or give the mage/wizard a different 6th level feature and have the undead buff be a common talent shared between acolyte/cleric and mage. Other than that, I love this...it's very well done!

BTW, my personal advice for an Acolyte talent for undead buffing would be as-follows:

Desecrate
Prerequisite: Cleric, non-good alignment, at least 3rd level
Benefits: You can perform a 10 minute ritual that taints a 30ft radius location, empowering reanimation spells you cast there. When you complete this ritual, for the next 24 hours spells you cast there that create one or more undead creatures (Such as Animate Dead or Create Undead) gain the following additional effects:

If this spell is Animate Dead, it can target 1 additional corpse or bone pile and create 1 additional skeleton or zombie. (as applicable)
The undead this spell creates increase their hit point maximums by your Acolyte level.
The weapon attacks of the undead this spell creates deal an additional 1d4 damage of the type they deal normally. At 14th level, this additional damage increases to 1d8.

Note that this talent should be exclusive to acolytes, so Mages can't stack this and undead thralls for super-minions.

Kryx
2017-11-19, 03:36 PM
First of all, thanks for checking out the project and providing feedback!


I like this quite a bit, but one thing still saddens me....death clerics still are not as good at reanimating the dead as mages (wizards)
You'll notice that there is no Necromancy Tradition for Wizards. I've been considering bringing it back in another form, but I agree with you that Mages shouldn't be the best necromancers - divine characters (Acolytes) should.


I feel there should be more than one option to make an undead minion-master/other classes beyond mage/wizard should be able to be good at it if built to do so.
There are several spells now that raise zombies/skeletons. Several added via XGtE. Acolytes can do it quite well.


have the undead buff be a common talent shared between acolyte/cleric and mage.
I've been debating if such a buff should even exist. I'd have to evaluate the spell's effectiveness more before deciding.


Other than that, I love this...it's very well done!
Thanks!

If anyone has some analysis on raising undead spells I'd be curious to read them.



On the Sorcerer topic:
Resilient Husk is equivalent to Arcane Deflection (2nd level). It is basically a free spell slot (Mage Armor) while the Mage gets a reaction to add +2 to AC.
Armored Husk is equivalent to Armor proficiency (1st level).

Armored Husk is reliant on Resilient Husk and really the Battle Sorcerer has no 2nd level class feature that the Magus/Paladin/Soulknife/Hexblade does.
I'll need to fix these issues - and possibly change the Battle Sorcerer to be more of a transformer.

Giegue
2017-11-19, 03:51 PM
Yeah, I saw that the tradition of necromancy was omitted, but then under the general list of tradition features, Necromancy was still listed. If your intent is for acolytes to be the better necromancers, you should remove the refrence to the wizard necromancy school in the mage entry as its confusing to not have it as a school choice, but then list the levels it gets its features and the features it gets. However, if you go the route of not having the necromancy school exsist as it is written in the PHB and either omitting it entirely or brining it back in a form not related to minion control, than either of those routes is fine.

Kryx
2017-11-19, 07:15 PM
Battle Sorcerer replaced with Shapeshifter. Themed like the D&D Next playtest Sorcerer, Dragon Disciple, or Dragoon of older editions.


The magic within you surges and seethes as your physical shape completely transforms to a new form. You are a fearsome warrior who possess not only the repertoire of an accomplished sorcerer but also the ability to unleash the furious power of your origin upon your foes.

It's a mix of Alter Self (Natural Weapons), Monk, and Naturalist of the Claw with half spellcasting. The damage is right where I want it. See DPR of Homebrew Classes (https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1sGvcz9vbq9yk4kRBEY6ZYGWhGO6-t7CWudznQcWPk74/edit#gid=576840706).

Kryx
2017-11-20, 05:27 AM
Changes

Added Eschew Materials back to Sorcerer now that Occultist is split - it is flavorful for them to not provide material components due to their innate casting.
Added Power Surge to the Sorcerer - a 1/short rest ability to increase damage of a spell, but preventing spellcasting for 1 turn.
Sorcerer HD increased to d8. Sorcerers are hardier than Wizards due to the magic that resides within them.
Added Darkvision 30 feet to the Sorcerer's Origin Form.
Arcane/Kinetic Deflection's Constitution saving throw bonus only works to maintain concentration.
Minstrel has another Expertise feature at 18th level.
Psionicists wording to avoid spell components cleaned up to indicate that components that cost must still be spent.


Eschew Materials is comparable to the Wizard's larger list of spells that he knows
d8 + Resilient husk + Power Surge should be comparable to d6 + Arcane Deflection (& mage armor).

I envision Resilient husk being the form the Shapeshifter walks around with and then they fully transform when they are near battle. Resilient Husk and Origin form overlap a bit, but the added darkvision to Origin form should make up for that.

Giegue
2017-11-20, 09:33 AM
Just saw the changes I made and I am really, really happy with this. Mainly because, while this is a selfish want, I always, always, ALWAYS have wanted the ability to play a charismatic cleric that isn't mechanically gimped in 5e, and you have delievered a way to do that. To me, it just makes sense to have clerics that can cast off charisma...the "charsimatic" preacher is a very common trope, and it just makes sense themeatically and mechanically that some priests would draw their magic from their passion and force of conviction rather than a deeper connection to their deity. In my eyes, a church would likely have both wisdom-based and charisa-based clerics. The wisdom based ones would be things like members of cloistered monastic orders that spend their time away from society contemplating the deeper mysteries of their deity, or inquisitors/church investigators ,who would need to have keen senses for and a knack for seeing through lies. Meanwhile, the charismas-based ones would be the evangelizers or priests who represent the faith's interests in the courts/political spheres, filling a very common trope that, in vanilla 5e, is a mechanically penalized character concept. (clerics in 5e really have 0 use for Cha, unlike past editions where they actually wanted a bit of charisma)

However, the fact you provided a great way to make Charisma-clerics a thing makes me absolutly excited, and I thank you for doing this! That being said, I did notice one "glitch" with the acolyte, paticularly in the War oath It's extra attack feature is based soly on wisdom, rather than wisdom or charisma. I'm not sure if this is intentional or by accident, but just thought I'd point it out since all the other oaths can work off either stat, so the fact this one oath forces you into a stat choice. If your intent was for it to stat-lock you, thats fine, but to me if your allowing total freedom with what stat of wisdom or charisma you cast off of, you should also allow total freedom of oath choice, and not lock any one oath (or archetype, as I REALLY, REALLY love the fact Charisma clerics are a thing, now) into a specific stat.

Its your rules though, so in the end if your intent was to stat lock the Oath of War I can understand. Just thought I'd let you know in case it was just a mistake you missed.

Kryx
2017-11-20, 10:13 AM
It is a conversion mistake. It is incorrect for: Loyal Defender, Warding Flare, Wrath of the Storm, Vow of Enmity, War Priest.

The same is true for some talents that give spellcasting ability for an Acolyte.

It'll be fixed on the next release. Thanks for pointing it out!

EDIT: They should be fixed now.

Arte
2017-11-20, 01:59 PM
One of your feats: Reach

References Eidolon but never requires Eidolon while other things have Eidolon as a prerequisite.

Resistance and Roar also do this.

So annoying that homebrewery pdfs don't let you do searches for text. But it looks nice.

Kryx
2017-11-20, 07:10 PM
Eidolon only evolutions are only for things that are not meant to be available to the Evolutionist talent. Reach, Resistance, and Roar do not have such restrictions.

Ugganaut
2017-11-20, 11:23 PM
I'll need to go through all this again, so many changes from reading it a month ago :)

Animal Companion: Two things I noticed. First is the strange effect on the Ranger's spellcasting(haven't looked on druid). At level 3, you spend a trait to get your companion, and you give up the mana used to cast a spell or use Primal Strike - so effectively no spellcasting until you get rid of the companion. At level 7, you can cast a 1st level spell. At level 8 a 2nd level spell. At level 9, you're back to a 1st level spell. It's a weird two step forward one step back routine. I'm guessing it is intended to remove spellcasting at lower levels, because you have an animal companion.
The second thing, is while most of the companions abilities and cost is linked to character level via proficiency, hit points are linked to class level. My Ranger 3/Barbarian 5 can have an animal companion at Ranger 3. At Barbarian 1, he pays the same cost in mana, but hit points do not improve. At Barbarian 2(character 5, prof +3), he can no longer pay the cost(5 mana) of his link to his animal companion.
Maybe link both cost and hit points to class level. All the improvements from prof make it a feasible combatant at your current character level. The hit points is how long that beast can stay in the fight(simply put). So the R3/B5 has an equally efficient beast compared to an R8, but will hang around for an additional 5HD worth of hits - with an appropriate cost different.

Also noticed you can no longer have a Druid/Ranger, as they are now the same class. Just an observation, not saying that's an issue.

Kryx
2017-11-21, 04:55 AM
Animal Companion is changed very little from the Revised Ranger UA besides the highlighted bits and the mana cost. The UA Ranger's Animal Companion's Hit Dice scale based on Ranger level. The same is true in my version. The companion's proficiency bonus being tied to your proficiency bonus is the same as that version as well and is purposeful. Similar to how cantrips use prof of all classes and scale based on character level.

Multiclassing should be unnecessary beyond martial/caster or martial/martial multiclasses. I would recommend against multiclassing in general as it's typically for power purposes, especially since my rules allow for a significant amount of customization already.

Mana cost: An animal companion is a huge power increase. It gives AC and HP to the party to tank which is quite significant. It also gives a small amount of damage. There has to be some offset cost for that. I could change it to a 3rd archetype instead of druid/ranger which has half casting and no extra attack (the companion would attack), but it doesn't feel super satisfying.
Or perhaps I keep it as is and do not reduce the maximum mana? I'm unsure what the best option is.

Ugganaut
2017-11-21, 06:38 AM
Animal Companion is changed very little from the Revised Ranger UA besides the highlighted bits and the mana cost. The UA Ranger's Animal Companion's Hit Dice scale based on Ranger level. The same is true in my version. The companion's proficiency bonus being tied to your proficiency bonus is the same as that version as well and is purposeful. Similar to how cantrips use prof of all classes and scale based on character level.

I always seem to have an issue explaining my points properly.

1. Scaling AC/Combat/Skills etc using Proficiency(as in UA RR) - No issue. Keeps the pet viable at any level, single or multiclassed.
2. Scaling Hit Dice using Class level(as in UA RR) - No issue. Straight class's pet has more HP, therefore doesn't get taken out of the fight as easily. As you mentioned, a pet is a big power increase, so multiclassing hinders that.
3. Scaling Mana cost using Proficiency - Issue for multiclassing, and for single class creates the weird forward/back with what you can cast with your mana while having a pet. Example, 7th level you can cast a 1st level spell, 8th level a 2nd level spell, 9th level your back to a first level spell.


Multiclassing should be unnecessary beyond martial/caster or martial/martial multiclasses. I would recommend against multiclassing in general as it's typically for power purposes, especially since my rules allow for a significant amount of customization already.
In general, I disagree, as changing career's(eg Rogue to Wizard) is understandable from a non-power/roleplay perspective. It makes it harder to design things, I get that.
Specifically, I have a Ranger 3/Barbarian 5, so I convert it using each iteration of your rules to see how it looks/compares, and often look at the rest of those two classes as well.


Mana cost: An animal companion is a huge power increase. It gives AC and HP to the party to tank which is quite significant. It also gives a small amount of damage. There has to be some offset cost for that. I could change it to a 3rd archetype instead of druid/ranger which has half casting and no extra attack (the companion would attack), but it doesn't feel super satisfying. Or perhaps I keep it as is and do not reduce the maximum mana? I'm unsure what the best option is.
I agree, needs to be an offset cost.
My recommendation was to link the cost to class level instead of proficiency. Examples -
a) Reduce mana pool by half class level(rounded up).
b) Reduce mana pool by 1 per Hit Dice of the companion.

Beastmaster archetype vs Talent/Mana version:
I like your Talent/Mana, so both Druid and Ranger have the option to have a decent companion. How much value that pet has on average should determine how hefty the cost is on mana pool, and I'm no good at the numbers.
Beastmaster limits the companion to one archetype. The only reason I don't like that idea, is it either has to be a half or full caster. For versatility, I'd prefer to see both half and full casters have access to a pet. One uses it as a fighting companion, the other as more a protector.

Kryx
2017-11-21, 07:10 AM
I have a Ranger 3/Barbarian 5
That's a caster martial/martial, which was my exception. ;)

If you look around on forums nearly every multiclass is made for powergaming purposes. My system would still allow for multiclassing, but I would recommend doing it quite sparingly as many would be inefficient in duplication of features.


I agree, needs to be an offset cost.
Giving such a core feature as a talent feels incorrect. A talent should not be a defining core concept of a character. Additionally giving such a benefit as a talent requires that the benefit be relatively weak (like the current talent).

If the full caster were to get a pet the pet would do about 7 DPR and tank. If there is a strong desire to have strong casting and a weak companion then that could possibly be accomplished, but the idea has to be solid and not just some meat shield.

I looked at adding them as archetypes again and they slot in quite well to the archetype structure. I think I'll do this approach again after I do some math to ensure that the result is good.

Ugganaut
2017-11-21, 07:16 AM
I agree with the talent assessment. If its a core feature, is there any way to add it to the Naturalist base class instead of the archetypes?
For example, a core feature that was Pick A(extra mana, or something equivalent to a companion) or B(Companion). If it was extra mana, you'd had to reduce the mana given in the archetypes. I have no idea how to implement something like this :)

Kryx
2017-11-21, 11:23 AM
That's exactly what the archetype system is. It provides options for the power of the class. Some examples:
- More mana, Faster progression, and higher level spells = Druid
- Medium amount of mana, slower progression, 5th level spells, fully proficient martial capability = Ranger
- Medium amount of mana, slower progression, 5th level spells, some martial capability, companion = Beastmaster

A full caster with a companion would be problematic to implement in a balanced way based on the system I use. With the old slots a companion could've used the lesser warlock progression, but that progression is the main progression now. We could possibly add some kind of 7th level caster progression, but that'd be a bit of a challenge to get right.

Ugganaut
2017-11-21, 05:50 PM
That's above my pay grade :)

Terra Reveene
2017-11-25, 11:09 AM
Now that I think about it, this looks pretty much exactly like 4e's progression system. Talents being feats (although 4e feat system suucked, this is a lot better imo), and the ability score improvements are pretty much the same as well. Was it a big inspiration or did it just happen to end up that way?

Kryx
2017-11-25, 11:41 AM
Warlock is the inspiration for the spellcasting and talents. Talents are just invocations repurposed for all classes (with my half sized feats and others added in).

All ability scores improving at points was inspired by 4e. It results in more well rounded characters.

The 4e feat system is different - 11 feats at 20th level compared to 8 for warlock invocations and my system for casters. 4e has abilities at 4, 8, 14, 18 and all abilities at 11 and 21.

In general 5e pulls a lot from 4e, far more than people realize. The only thing I pull directly from 4e (not from 5e) is all ability scores improving.


I'll post an update some time next week when I'm back from vacation. I've moved animal companion and eidolon into archetypes and made some other changes.

Kryx
2017-11-26, 03:35 PM
Changes:

Beastmaster added as an archetype to the Naturalist. It is a martial leaning half caster with a pet (Animal Companion). Damage is on DPR of Homebrew classes - Naturalist (https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1sGvcz9vbq9yk4kRBEY6ZYGWhGO6-t7CWudznQcWPk74/edit#gid=1470293847) for TWF and GWM.
Summoner added as an archetype to the Occultist. It is a magic leaning half caster with a pet (Eidolon). Damage is on DPR of Homebrew classes - Occultist (https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1sGvcz9vbq9yk4kRBEY6ZYGWhGO6-t7CWudznQcWPk74/edit#gid=1372301824).
Occultist now has "Grimoire" as it's 2nd level feature in addition to Eldritch Secrets. This is basically Pact of the Tome. Warlock casts rituals in 5 mins instead of 10 min.
Quickened Cantrips has been restored. My previous math was incorrect.
Empowered Cantrips moved to a talent (Spellcasting ability to one damage roll of a cantrip)
Fused Form adjusted to be Occultist only (since Beastmaster is more martial). It now adds cantrip damage instead of extra attack.
Wisdom/Charisma fixed for Acolyte subclasses.
Added Psionicist image


I'm considering what to do about the Naturalist of the Claw. It could possibly be an archetype like the Shapeshifter Sorcerer.
I'm also considering adding a "Find Beast" spell that is quite similar to "Find Steed" to enable Druids and Rangers to have a very weak companion.

Amondin
2017-11-26, 04:06 PM
Okay, sorry I've taken so long. My first observation is that there is a lot of overlap with the talents, and perhaps an oversight or two, which is understandable given the number of them. For example Eldritch Sight is available to all spellcasters, giving them the ability to cast Detect Magic at will without expending mana, which is quite a powerful ability. Arcane Sight, however, is Wizard and Psion only, and seems to be a strictly worse version of Detect Magic except it is restricted in some way, unlike Eldritch Sight. Another thing is that the very powerful Chains of Carceri talent doesn't seem to have any prerequisites other than level, allowing, for example, a Fighter to take this and do the old Eldritch Knight combo of Action Surge + Hold Person (in this case Hold Monster), or just wait until your next turn (either way, auto-crits). There are others that I will bring up later.

My second observation is that though the "gish" archetype for all of the full casters still gets the 2-8 Talent progression, whereas the full martials only get 1-6. Given the fact that the gishes get so many features compared to the full casters, you might consider making the number of talents allotted based in the archetype rather than the class to avoid the sheer utility and comparable martial ability of these gishes completely overshadowing the fighters and barbarians of the world.

My third point is that Spell Points refreshing on a short rest really undermines the power of full casters in campaigns that are in later stages that pretty much only have one combat encounter a day. Unless you have an Astral Sorcerer or Occultist, you're going to be hurting when your 17th level Wizard spends the last of his spell points and has to use Chill Touch. I definitely prefer long rest recharge for this reason and some others.

My fourth observation is going to be rather long, more on the specifics of certain classes. Let's start with Acolyte; first off, I see Oath of Life is not included, but its Channel Divinity: Preserve Life was included in the Protection/Devotion combination. I know it isn't really a role in 5e, but some clerics I know don't particularly want to spend as many of their spell points healing (in my experience people take Life because they want to have to heal less because they get yelled at if they don't heal at all and they don't want to spend all of their early spell slots on it).

In Barbarian, I don't have a lot of experience with the class, but here are things I would consider changing. Firstly, I am unsure of the power of Spirit Shield, and as it is so pivotal to the success of the archetype, you might consider adding the Barbarian's con modifier to the reduction. For Path of the Storm Herald, I would love to see some interaction with the Barbarian's stats, so I would probably change all of the flat numbers in Storm Aura to "equal to your Constitution modifier." I am happy to see Totem Spirit: Bear seeing a return to its former glory; I do agree it is balanced now, given there is so much more psychic damage out there. If you wanted to nerf it you could give them vulnerability to psychic and leave everything else. Path of the Zealot seems to be pretty strong and flavorful now, even with no changes; I dig it.

I think Fighter is in a good spot in every way, I would love to see some stats/feedback on the power of individual maneuvers if you have them, or if not, I'd like to hear your design philosophy for them.

For Mage, my only issue with the base class is the fact that Arcane Deflection was nerfed (I thought it was fine at +4, but I agree it should only work on Concentration). The spell lists for some of the archetypes seem slightly undertuned (Abjuration, some on Conjuration, some on Divination, some on Illusion, level 7 and 9 on Transmutation) but I'll save the specifics on that for another time. Minor Conjuration is still very limited in use beyond cheese like "Oh, I saw this other Wizard's spell book, time to make another copy of it every time it runs out to copy all of his spells!" or scenarios like creating a box with a slit in the side to cast spells out of to ruin line of sight (but that can already be done with Minor Illusion). Beyond that it seems useless. Durable Summons is still weak, especially on one large summon like with Conjure Elemental or Summon Greater Fiend. I think it would be cool if you could bestow the effects of The Third Eye on other people, it would make it significantly less terrible; also there is a typo under "Forewarned" that says it is gained at 14th instead of 10th level. Alter Memories seems pretty limited in use. I don't think Empowered Evocation is particularly strong for the level. Improved Minor Illusion doesn't seem overly powerful, but that's probably fine given the power of Major Image cast at 7th level (infinite duration, no concentration) + Illusory Reality with Malleable Illusions. Minor Alchemy isn't amazing, but that's fine because it seems they are the only Wizard with the ability to gain Con save proficiency and cast Raise Dead (now without sacrificing your Stone).

For Minstrel, some of the spell lists are weak (some standout spells on lists are Geas, Legend Lore, Mislead, Locate Creature, etc). I will go through the rest of the classes once I hear back from you.

Kryx
2017-11-26, 04:34 PM
Okay, sorry I've taken so long. My first observation is that there is a lot of overlap with the talents, and perhaps an oversight or two, which is understandable given the number of them. For example Eldritch Sight is available to all spellcasters, giving them the ability to cast Detect Magic at will without expending mana, which is quite a powerful ability. Arcane Sight, however, is Wizard and Psion only, and seems to be a strictly worse version of Detect Magic except it is restricted in some way, unlike Eldritch Sight. Another thing is that the very powerful Chains of Carceri talent doesn't seem to have any prerequisites other than level, allowing, for example, a Fighter to take this and do the old Eldritch Knight combo of Action Surge + Hold Person (in this case Hold Monster), or just wait until your next turn (either way, auto-crits). There are others that I will bring up later.
Added Spellcasting requirement on Chains of Carceri.
Eldritch Sense (same as Arcane Sense) replaces Arcane / Psychic Sense and Eldritch Sight. Either Mage, Occultist, or Psionicist can take it.


My second observation is that though the "gish" archetype for all of the full casters still gets the 2-8 Talent progression, whereas the full martials only get 1-6. Given the fact that the gishes get so many features compared to the full casters, you might consider making the number of talents allotted based in the archetype rather than the class to avoid the sheer utility and comparable martial ability of these gishes completely overshadowing the fighters and barbarians of the world.
8 is the number that warlock get and the number I was aiming for. A half caster and Full caster do not get a different number of talents because they should be comparable. A full caster will have more access to spells, but significantly less hp, armor, and archetype features.
Martials have 6 because they have significantly more class features. See page 25 for a full comparison.

Casters in this system should be more comparable to martials as casters cannot blow their whole set of spells in 1 combat, but are limited to short rests. Gishes have quite limited spell capabilities in each combat until later in the levels. Comparing the damage a barbarian will do significantly more DPR (~10%) than a gish. If there is anything else I've missed here please do point it out.


My third point is that Spell Points refreshing on a short rest really undermines the power of full casters in campaigns that are in later stages that pretty much only have one combat encounter a day. Unless you have an Astral Sorcerer or Occultist, you're going to be hurting when your 17th level Wizard spends the last of his spell points and has to use Chill Touch. I definitely prefer long rest recharge for this reason and some others.
Spells recharging on a short rest is by design. Long rest casting has signficant impact on balance and other factors. If long rest is your preference then this system isn't for you.


My fourth observation is going to be rather long, more on the specifics of certain classes. Let's start with Acolyte; first off, I see Oath of Life is not included, but its Channel Divinity: Preserve Life was included in the Protection/Devotion combination. I know it isn't really a role in 5e, but some clerics I know don't particularly want to spend as many of their spell points healing (in my experience people take Life because they want to have to heal less because they get yelled at if they don't heal at all and they don't want to spend all of their early spell slots on it).
Life doesn't stop the stigma of not healing - it actually makes it worse. It somewhat obligates clerics to choose that option in groups that prefer more healing. Lay on hands was added as part of the Paladin merge so there is plenty of healing capability without burning mana.


Barbarian
Your comments are mainly around the XGtE content which is generally well received and the small tweaks suggested don't make much impact and aren't necessary imo.


For Mage, my only issue with the base class is the fact that Arcane Deflection was nerfed (I thought it was fine at +4, but I agree it should only work on Concentration).
+4 Concentration is not a simple +20% less likely to fail concentration, but something more around 40% less likely to fail concentration. I forget the exact math, but +4 is waaaay too strong.


Minor Conjuration is still very limited in use beyond cheese like "Oh, I saw this other Wizard's spell book, time to make another copy of it every time it runs out to copy all of his spells!" or scenarios like creating a box with a slit in the side to cast spells out of to ruin line of sight (but that can already be done with Minor Illusion). Beyond that it seems useless.
Treantmonk disagrees (https://docs.google.com/document/d/1IeOXWvbkmQ3nEyM2P3lS8TU4rsK6QJP0oH7HE_v67QY/edit)


Durable Summons is still weak, especially on one large summon like with Conjure Elemental or Summon Greater Fiend. I think it would be cool if you could bestow the effects of The Third Eye on other people, it would make it significantly less terrible;
It seems weak for single summons, agreed. If you have suggestions I'd consider replacing it.
Thirs Eye is not in the flavor of Conjuration though. Conjuration is summons, creating things, and teleporting.


typo under "Forewarned" that says it is gained at 14th instead of 10th level.
Fixed


Alter Memories seems pretty limited in use. I don't think Empowered Evocation is particularly strong for the level. Improved Minor Illusion doesn't seem overly powerful, but that's probably fine given the power of Major Image cast at 7th level (infinite duration, no concentration) + Illusory Reality with Malleable Illusions. Minor Alchemy isn't amazing, but that's fine because it seems they are the only Wizard with the ability to gain Con save proficiency and cast Raise Dead (now without sacrificing your Stone).
If you have suggestions for improvements they can be considered. Otherwise most of these abilities are in the ok to good range so they are not altered.


For Minstrel, some of the spell lists are weak (some standout spells on lists are Geas, Legend Lore, Mislead, Locate Creature, etc).
Spell lists are not based on power, but on flavor. Not every subclass is combat based. Some will have significantly more focus on other aspects, hence the "less useful" spell lists. If certain spells need to be buffed because they're bad then I'm more than happy to pursue that route.

Amondin
2017-11-26, 05:12 PM
Eldritch Sense (same as Arcane Sense) replaces Arcane / Psychic Sense and Eldritch Sight. Either Mage, Occultist, or Psionicist can take it.


Sounds good!



8 is the number that warlock get and the number I was aiming for. A half caster and Full caster do not get a different number of talents because they should be comparable. A full caster will have more access to spells, but significantly less hp, armor, and archetype features.


That's fair. Given that argument, I would only like to see more talents that are full caster-specific, like perhaps making some of the at-will talents not available to the gish archetypes as they are quite formidable in melee (or using ranged weapons, I suppose), and I like the idea that full casters would have developed more powerful magic given that they haven't compromised whatsoever (unlike gishes, who are very martial) in their pursuit of higher magical capabilities.



Casters in this system should be more comparable to martials as casters cannot blow their whole set of spells in 1 combat, but are limited to short rests. Gishes have quite limited spell capabilities in each combat until later in the levels. Comparing the damage a barbarian will do significantly more DPR (~10%) than a gish. If there is anything else I've missed here please do point it out.


That all makes sense, I only worry that doing 10% more damage than a gish is enough given that, using your example, Barbarians all but lack out of combat utility when compared to a character with any kind of spellcasting ability, and have very little battlefield control besides. I believe moving some of the at-will spellcasting to being full-casters only as I mentioned above would largely fix this issue.



Spells recharging on a short rest is by design. Long rest casting has signficant impact on balance and other factors. If long rest is your preference then this system isn't for you.


That's fine. I more clearly see your overall point now, I would just like, as I've said above, more talents that are only for full-casters. I would love to help in this regard.



Life doesn't stop the stigma of not healing - it actually makes it worse. It somewhat obligates clerics to choose that option in groups that prefer more healing. Lay on hands was added as part of the Paladin merge so there is plenty of healing capability without burning mana.


A cleric in a game I was in once said that he took Life Domain so that he had to spend less resources healing. I do like the Lay on Hands addition. Overall I really like Acolyte, and this was pretty much my only significant issue with the class as a whole.



Your comments are mainly around the XGtE content which is generally well received and the small tweaks suggested don't make much impact and aren't necessary imo.


Fair enough. I just really like the idea of class and/or archetype features scaling off of character attributes.



+4 Concentration is not a simple +20% less likely to fail concentration, but something more around 40% less likely to fail concentration. I forget the exact math, but +4 is waaaay too strong.


I understand, though the ability can only be used if you have already failed the Concentration check, and I don't know if +2 is enough to prevent loss of concentration if you already failed with your constitution modifier and (later) centered caster. Perhaps +3 would be reasonable?



Treantmonk disagrees


Fair enough.



It seems weak for single summons, agreed. If you have suggestions I'd consider replacing it.
Thirs Eye is not in the flavor of Conjuration though. Conjuration is summons, creating things, and teleporting.


As far as The Third Eye, I wasn't suggesting anything regarding Conjuration, I was saying that the Divination ability could be buffed by allowing it to be bestowed on other creatures. Apologies, I should've made that more clear.

For Durable Summons you could potentially say that if a spell summons only one creature the amount is doubled on them, or they get a non-physical resistance of your choice, or something similar.



If you have suggestions for improvements they can be considered. Otherwise most of these abilities are in the ok to good range so they are not altered.


I'd like to address this in another reply at another time.



Spell lists are not based on power, but on flavor. Not every subclass is combat based. Some will have significantly more focus on other aspects, hence the "less useful" spell lists. If certain spells need to be buffed because they're bad then I'm more than happy to pursue that route.

I definitely have some thoughts about how to improve some of the weaker spells. I'd like to address this at another time when I'll be more able to look through it all.

Saiga
2017-11-26, 09:32 PM
I'm looking forward to reading this - the mana and talent systems sound very helpful for the World of Warcraft homebrew I'm lightly working on - but one thing I noticed, did plate armour really need an additional penalty added to it? Especially with Studded Leather becoming the base leather armour. That feels like a pretty serious penalty when strength classes would count as athletics as one of their few good skills.

Ugganaut
2017-11-27, 12:51 AM
I've been disappointed by 5e clerics in general. One of my favourite characters is a cleric of Tymora. There is still no Luck, Fate, Change or Travel domains.

5th edition is the first time I've tried a Paladin since I started in 2nd edition. The Sacred Oaths were so limiting regarding roleplaying, it just wasn't worth it for me.
Playing a good dwarf vengeance Paladin has been fun, pushing the moral boundaries of "By Any Means Necessary", doing things to keep my oath, but being disgusted by my own actions.
In general though, I usually play Clerics over Paladin's, to get a similar holy-power religious feel, without the hardcore rigidness of the Paladin.

Acolyte having Sacred Oaths instead of Domains, I just hate it.
Dwarven Battle Clerics of Clangeddin, are not evil little monsters, they just love battle in all its forms - bar fights, killing orcs etc. Some may like the tactical aspect of battle, more about the skill, or large opposing armies etc. The closest you can get to this is Oath of War for these types of characters, and it feels like subjugation and domination as much as war. The "I just love a good fight" types don't belong in that oath, or any other.

Tempest is another example of what I'm trying to get across.
"Downpour. Channel your anger into areas where crops best grow." Why would Umberlee care about that? She's an evil god of the sea.
"Thunder. Be the voice for the voiceless. Speak for the downtrodden and the oppressed." Talos again, is evil, he couldn't care less. He wants destruction.
Yet these are sacred oaths they have to try not to break now.

Domains are like a general topic usually. Like Knowledge. Multiple gods have this domain, good and evil people may revere gods with this domain. The gods usually have a dogma for their clergy, and often the clerics focus on one particular aspect(domain). You can also worship many gods of the one domain(like Storm, or Weather).
Sacred Oaths, to me at least, seem to be driven by morality or emotion. Oath of the Ancients is a nature oriented good vs evil order(protect the light etc), Devotion is more honor and justice etc, but both are morality driven. Vengeance and Redemption, same thing, they talk to justice, or wrong doing - morality.

I always thought in exchange for the Paladin making these very restrictive oaths, they got a bit of extra power. It's one reason balancing other classes off them seemed too much.

Solution? I'm not sure. I think Acolytes should get access to domain specialties(both archtypes). Only Paladins should have Oaths. Their "reward" are smites. You could restrict each Oath to certain smites, but might be unnecessary.

I've got a few clerics, and none of them fit in Acolyte. The lack of Domains seems like a big oversight. For me anyway.

Kryx
2017-11-27, 05:05 AM
That's fair. Given that argument, I would only like to see more talents that are full caster-specific, like perhaps making some of the at-will talents not available to the gish archetypes as they are quite formidable in melee (or using ranged weapons, I suppose), and I like the idea that full casters would have developed more powerful magic given that they haven't compromised whatsoever (unlike gishes, who are very martial) in their pursuit of higher magical capabilities.
I could increase the level requirement for the gish classes - I'll have to think about that. If there are specific talents that you think are inappropriate for the level on a gish please mention them.


That all makes sense, I only worry that doing 10% more damage than a gish is enough given that, using your example, Barbarians all but lack out of combat utility when compared to a character with any kind of spellcasting ability, and have very little battlefield control besides. I believe moving some of the at-will spellcasting to being full-casters only as I mentioned above would largely fix this issue.
If a Barbarian wants more damage then a subclass like Berserker offers it. If they want more utility a subclass like Totem Warrior or Ancestral Protectors offers it.
Overall Barbarians and Fighters are specifically designed as more combat focused classes. By RAW their damage advantage over gishes like Paladin or Bladelocks is about 10% as well. I believe the current damage difference is enough, given that they can take subclasses to offer more damage or more utility. Ideally the classes should offer more utility, but that doesn't really fit their flavor. Overall I think they're in a pretty good place, though am open to exploring other pillar opportunities for them.


I understand, though the ability can only be used if you have already failed the Concentration check, and I don't know if +2 is enough to prevent loss of concentration if you already failed with your constitution modifier and (later) centered caster. Perhaps +3 would be reasonable?
I believe the ability to get hit ~40% less and fail concentration saving throws ~40% less is significantly powerful and needs no boost. Those are both huuuuge class features that significantly strengthen the class.


As far as The Third Eye, I wasn't suggesting anything regarding Conjuration, I was saying that the Divination ability could be buffed by allowing it to be bestowed on other creatures. Apologies, I should've made that more clear.
Ah. I'd say it's more flavorful to have the abilities be on the Mage and not on any other creatures. The feature is quite strong already - doing so would increase its power which doesn't seem warranted.


For Durable Summons you could potentially say that if a spell summons only one creature the amount is doubled on them, or they get a non-physical resistance of your choice, or something similar.
A better implementation would be to generate a number of temp hit points that are divided by the summons. Even then the complaint isn't about the distribution of the temp hp, but the overall lackluster feature that temp hp on summons is. I'd be happier to replace the feature.


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



did plate armour really need an additional penalty added to it?
From a realism standpoint plate armor has a significant impact on the ability to swim: https://vimeo.com/13634653.
Mechanically, Plate armor is one of the only ways to achieve 18 AC as a base before shield/fighting stance. It is not weak.

That said, if you think swimming in heavy armor would incur no penalty then feel free to ignore that aspect of bulky.


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

Regarding Oaths: I think you have a point that they are too strongly worded. I will look to restructure them.



Acolyte having Sacred Oaths instead of Domains, I just hate it.
I've got a few clerics, and none of them fit in Acolyte. The lack of Domains seems like a big oversight. For me anyway.
Domains being so lacking in flavor is one of the main complaints of Clerics in 5e. The goal isn't to make Clerics righteous Paladins, but definitely to add more flavor to their connection to their deity instead of some extremely loose connection. If I've passed the boundry into righteousness then that is a mistake.

"oh, I know this deity and I just take some power, but have no obligation to serve him or align with his goals or anything." I've seen that mindset far too much. Acolytes don't need to be zealots, but there should be an actual connection to their deity. The oaths are probably worded a bit too harshly right now and I will soften that approach.

Irregardless of the oaths though it sounds like you want other subclasses. If you're like to build them and post them somewhere for feedback from the community I'd be happy to consider adding them.
For some old domains other classes may be better choices. A worshiper of a deity need not be an acolyte - it could easily be a mage, monk, occultist, etc.

I'm not the best at flavor so if you have an idea to have a connection to the deity please take the time to create some wording for the class feature description and a subclass or two.


Dwarven Battle Clerics of Clangeddin, are not evil little monsters, they just love battle in all its forms - bar fights, killing orcs etc. Some may like the tactical aspect of battle, more about the skill, or large opposing armies etc. The closest you can get to this is Oath of War for these types of characters, and it feels like subjugation and domination as much as war. The "I just love a good fight" types don't belong in that oath, or any other.
"I just love a good fight" isn't a Cleric. That's a Fighter or Barbarian. Perhaps a Barbarian Zealot or some other flavor.
"I praise my god who brings me victory in battle" is a Cleric and I believe that flavor is captured in the Oath of War. If not please do provide suggestions.


Tempest is another example of what I'm trying to get across.
"Downpour. Channel your anger into areas where crops best grow." Why would Umberlee care about that? She's an evil god of the sea.
"Thunder. Be the voice for the voiceless. Speak for the downtrodden and the oppressed." Talos again, is evil, he couldn't care less. He wants destruction.
Yet these are sacred oaths they have to try not to break now.
Crops is the wrong word there. The point of that bullet is to channel the anger into useful channels.

Tenets are general approaches. They would be modified by each deity. I should make it far more clear that the listed tenets are options to choose from. Crown for example: "The tenets of the Oath of the Crown are often set by the sovereign to which their oath is sworn, but generally emphasize the following tenets."

I'll make that more clear.


Domains are like a general topic usually. Like Knowledge. Multiple gods have this domain, good and evil people may revere gods with this domain. The gods usually have a dogma for their clergy, and often the clerics focus on one particular aspect(domain). You can also worship many gods of the one domain(like Storm, or Weather).
Sacred Oaths, to me at least, seem to be driven by morality or emotion. Oath of the Ancients is a nature oriented good vs evil order(protect the light etc), Devotion is more honor and justice etc, but both are morality driven. Vengeance and Redemption, same thing, they talk to justice, or wrong doing - morality.
Religion is almost always based on morality. Deities, as you say, have a dogma, and Clerics should be expected to be more connected with that than they are in RAW 5e.
Ancients is a worshiper of nature gods. Nature gods generally abhor undead and want to preserve nature. Their motality is based on their dogma. I believe the Naturalist is a much better fit for this theme - splitting old religion and new religion works best imo.

Saiga
2017-11-27, 06:42 AM
I know it's logical, but... 1,500 GP cost, disadvantage on two skills, one of which is the only skill strength others, all for a +1 AC over leather armour which is dirt cheap and has no penalties. That is just nonsensical to me.

If you want to go for any sort of realism, the AC bonuses plate would have over other armour types would be absolutely massive.

Kryx
2017-11-27, 07:02 AM
I know it's logical, but... 1,500 GP cost, disadvantage on two skills, one of which is the only skill strength others, all for a +1 AC over leather armour which is dirt cheap and has no penalties. That is just nonsensical to me.
+1 AC over leather's armor after the leather wearer invests 20 into Dexterity. Plate costs no ability score points.
20 Dex can't be achieved until level 8 if they want to then waste their last 2 "All Ability scores increase" for Dex. Most likely they won't get 17 AC until 11th level, wasting the 16th level "All Ability scores increase".

The only thing my rules have changed from RAW is combining studded and leather and added the swim penalty. Beyond that the difference between leather and Plate are the same as RAW.

Ugganaut
2017-11-27, 08:42 AM
Domains being so lacking in flavor is one of the main complaints of Clerics in 5e.
Didn't know that, they played fine for us regarding flavor. Mechanically, you're changes fix the issues we were having. I'd always look at the dogma's from previous editions, and make my character up using that. So that's where the flavor came from. So I guess 5e is lacking a solid description of the gods and their dogma's.


"oh, I know this deity and I just take some power, but have no obligation to serve him or align with his goals or anything." I've seen that mindset far too much.
Really? Our table wouldn't have a bar of that. Divine power is not taken, it is given/channeled. If you were a cleric of Lathander, and started raising undead....no more spells for you sir. Even when the cleric worships something broad like a pantheon(eg Elven), you would call to different gods depending on what you were doing. I guess that comes down to role playing.


Irregardless of the oaths though it sounds like you want other subclasses.
Do you mean the Luck or Travel domain? I don't think they'd fit as an Oath.


For some old domains other classes may be better choices. A worshiper of a deity need not be an acolyte - it could easily be a mage, monk, occultist, etc.
And an acolyte need not be a cleric(quoting PHB 56). I know what you're getting at, but where your power is coming from does change the flavor of a character. Mage and Monk are learned, Occultist is bestowed, and Acolyte is channeled.


"I just love a good fight" isn't a Cleric. That's a Fighter or Barbarian. Perhaps a Barbarian Zealot or some other flavor.
You're right, bad example. I guess Barbarian Zealot is technically a holy warrior, like Paladin, but not :)


Religion is almost always based on morality.
The reason I disagree, is gods tend to have followers of different alignments(and grant them power). The dogma's weren't always regarding morality. A goddess of luck for example.


I believe the Naturalist is a much better fit for this theme - splitting old religion and new religion works best imo.
I wish that ridiculous rule about druids not wearing metal vanished. My weather/seasons cleric, who worships the First Circle, wears metal armor. I understand why some wouldn't want to, but didn't like they'd bought the mandatory back in 5th. Only a druid too. Ranger, wear whatever metal they like.
So far my cleric wouldn't fit in a Sacred Oath, or a Circle. I didn't even think it was a strange concept.

I'm probably only having issues because I'm trying to convert characters(they don't have to be identical, just feel the same). If I can't convert them, then it seems a bit limited.

Kryx
2017-11-27, 12:07 PM
I wish that ridiculous rule about druids not wearing metal vanished. My weather/seasons cleric, who worships the First Circle, wears metal armor. I understand why some wouldn't want to, but didn't like they'd bought the mandatory back in 5th. Only a druid too. Ranger, wear whatever metal they like.
I removed that as part of my rules.

I'm trying out the domain feel with a note about source of power. I think it may work better. I'll update once I'm done or abandon this approach.

Saiga
2017-11-27, 03:45 PM
+1 AC over leather's armor after the leather wearer invests 20 into Dexterity. Plate costs no ability score points.
20 Dex can't be achieved until level 8 if they want to then waste their last 2 "All Ability scores increase" for Dex. Most likely they won't get 17 AC until 11th level, wasting the 16th level "All Ability scores increase".

The only thing my rules have changed from RAW is combining studded and leather and added the swim penalty. Beyond that the difference between leather and Plate are the same as RAW.

It does require 15 strength to avoid further penalties. It's also not much of an investment if you're any sort of martial, you want to hit 20 in your attack stat.

Since it costs 1,500 GP, there's not much chance of getting it before level 8 anyway.

I'm aware you didn't change much, but I see no reason for those changes (plus you nerfed HAM) since the armour types don't follow logic in order to make them closer together. Adding additional penalties/nerfing HAM/giving studded leather away for free does nothing but improve leather's general position to plate, which was already very favourable.

Kryx
2017-11-27, 05:07 PM
Since it costs 1,500 GP, there's not much chance of getting it before level 8 anyway.
http://www.enworld.org/forum/showthread.php?402507-Deconstructing-5e-Typical-Wealth-by-Level
Assuming the random treasure tables: at the very latest you'd have enough gold by 6th level. Likely 4th or 5th level if you average out the jump between the treasure tiers. Also depends on the DM or adventure.


I'm aware you didn't change much, but I see no reason for those changes
Which change? Swimming? It's entirely within reason to include such a change. If you don't like it then I'm not forcing you to use it.


Adding additional penalties/nerfing HAM/giving studded leather away for free does nothing but improve leather's general position to plate, which was already very favourable.
HAM was changed for 2 reasons:

It's a half feat.
One of 5e's goals was to make low level combatants a threat. Removing damage from all attacks is a significant way to void that goal. 2 is still significant over the adventuring day - it's more significant than tough.

You'll also notice that Defensive Duelist is also limited.

People greatly overvalue Dexterity vs Strength. Let me draw a table to only compare AC:



Leather
Chain/Plate


1
12+3=15
16


2
12+3=15
16


3
12+3=15
16


4
12+4=16
16


5
12+4=16
16


6
12+4=16
18


7
12+4=16
18


8
12+4=16
18


9
12+4=16
18


10
12+4=16
18


11
12+5=17
18


12
12+5=17
18


13
12+5=17
18


14
12+5=17
18


15
12+5=17
18


So assuming we only play til 15th level Plate is ahead of Leather by 2 AC for 5 levels and ahead by 1 AC for 8 levels. They are tied for 2 levels.

Plate is totally fine, mechanically. It's by far the best option when it is available. Additionally Plate can take Heavy Armor Master for damage reduction which becomes more valuable than AC at later levels.

If you'd like to make your own armor system then I'd consider it if you posted it. But your current complaints of my system/RAW about the mechanical nature of the balance between Plate vs Leather(Studded Leather by RAW) are not correct.

Saiga
2017-11-27, 05:50 PM
If you're going to call someone's criticism incorrect then there's nothing more I can add.

Kryx
2017-11-27, 05:53 PM
Your complaint was that Plate was only +1 AC over leather and all kind of extra costs and penalties. It's not the whole picture, as I've shown above.

If you don't like my armor which in this complaint's case isn't significantly different from RAW armor then don't use it - make your own that you are happy with.

Kryx
2017-11-27, 06:00 PM
Changes:

Acolyte has domains instead of oaths. Adjustments:
Crown absorbed into Protection (Loyal Defender, Divine Allegiance), War (Champion Challenge)
Demise back to Death
Devotion absorbed into Protection (Shield of the Faithful, Sacred Weapon, Purity of Spirit)
Illumination back to Knowledge
Light becomes Sun
Life readded
Redemption absorbed into Protection (Rebuke the Violent), Life (Protective Spirit)
Tempest is now Tempest Domain
Trickery back to Trickery Domain
Vengeance is now Vengeance Domain
War back to War Domain. Aura of War replaced with Battle Cry

Ugganaut
2017-11-28, 03:48 AM
Love the changes.
At first it was a bit weird not seeing Sacred Oath in Paladin, even if it was just as flavor text. The more I think about it though, the more I think what you've done is the way to go. Each domain needs to have flavor for itself, not related to any deity. Unlike arcane power, which is pretty standard, the pantheon/s used from game to game varies so much, writing specific oaths or dogma's in a rules guide seems like the wrong place for it. That's for more a campaign setting book. I think for a rules book, you just need a general outline to say each acolyte has to follow some form of dogma to continue channeling power from his patron/s, and if he breaks his vows, or goes against that dogma, there are consequences. Which you've done.

Minor things -
* Battle Cry: "Each creature of your choice that can hear you within 30 feet of you has advantage on its next attack roll."
* Also, you reference the Light domain a couple times I think, instead of Sun domain.

I'm guessing you've done the math on the Clerics Quicken Cantrip vs Paladins martial. Lvl 1 - 4 the Cleric can do two Sacred Flames to the Paladin's single attack. Level 5 its two upscaled Sacred Flame vs Extra Attack. Paladin has more burst, but that requires resources. Assuming a standard sword and board Paladin, seems Cleric has the edge, and the range.
Thought Cleric would definitely have the edge with Empowered Cantrips, and realized it's not actually on any classes list of Talents.

I should have mentioned before, I love what you've done with Lay on Hands. We had an issue with 5e Paladins able to out-heal the Cleric in some instances. Now Cleric will always be superior, as they should be as the full caster.

As usual, it'll take for a long time to go through all the changes. You make these massive sweeping changes so fast, I'm jealous mate :smallsmile:

Kryx
2017-11-28, 08:34 AM
Each domain needs to have flavor for itself, not related to any deity. Unlike arcane power, which is pretty standard, the pantheon/s used from game to game varies so much, writing specific oaths or dogma's in a rules guide seems like the wrong place for it. That's for more a campaign setting book. I think for a rules book, you just need a general outline to say each acolyte has to follow some form of dogma to continue channeling power from his patron/s, and if he breaks his vows, or goes against that dogma, there are consequences. Which you've done.
Exactly - the way in which an acolyte achieves their power from their deity is up to each deity, dm, and player. I've provided guidelines for some general expectations and consequences under "Abandoning the Faith", but the rest is really up to choice.


Minor things -
* Battle Cry: "Each creature of your choice that can hear you within 30 feet of you has advantage on its next attack roll."
* Also, you reference the Light domain a couple times I think, instead of Sun domain.
Empowered Cantrips, and realized it's not actually on any classes list of Talents.
These will be fixed on the next release. I've added spellcasting requirement to Empowered Cantrips.


I'm guessing you've done the math on the Clerics Quicken Cantrip vs Paladins martial. Lvl 1 - 4 the Cleric can do two Sacred Flames to the Paladin's single attack. Level 5 its two upscaled Sacred Flame vs Extra Attack. Paladin has more burst, but that requires resources. Assuming a standard sword and board Paladin, seems Cleric has the edge, and the range.
The damage can be seen at DPR of Homebrew Classes (https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1sGvcz9vbq9yk4kRBEY6ZYGWhGO6-t7CWudznQcWPk74/edit#gid=128926737).

2nd level:
Cantrip Cleric: 5.0 DPR
GWM Paladin: 9.1 DPR (0.7 of which is smite)

3rd level:
Cantrip Cleric: 7.5 DPR
GWM Paladin: 11.1 DPR (0.9 of which is smite)

4th level:
Cantrip Cleric: 9.4 DPR
GWM Paladin: 13.2 DPR (1.4 of which is smite)

5th level:
Cantrip Cleric: 15.6 DPR
GWM Paladin: 24.8 DPR (1.6 of which is smite)

I considered starting the dual cantrips at 5th level, but cantrip damage is sufficiently low at early levels so I've started it at 2nd level.


I should have mentioned before, I love what you've done with Lay on Hands. We had an issue with 5e Paladins able to out-heal the Cleric in some instances. Now Cleric will always be superior, as they should be as the full caster.
I really like my new Lay on Hands. It removes the whack-a-mole ability of spending 1 point to raise someone from dying and the cost of removing a poison or disease is more reasonably priced now. It's nice that clerics have it as well.

Ugganaut
2017-11-28, 01:10 PM
Looking at the DPR table brings home the limit of my intelligence :smallsmile: Looks like "accuracy" plays a decent part, and advantage to attack rolls as well.
I'll trust your math :smallsmile:

Where are the links to your spells and races docs?

Kryx
2017-11-28, 01:26 PM
Where are the links to your spells and races docs?
Both are on the document shared in the first post. The table of contents links to races directly and spells are linked on the last page.

Ugganaut
2017-11-28, 01:44 PM
Thanks.

Skulker
Prerequisite: Dexterity 13 or higher
You are expert at slinking through shadows. You gain the following benefits:
* You can try to hide when you are lightly obscured from the creature from which you are hiding.
* When you are hidden from a creature and miss it with a ranged weapon attack, making the attack doesnít reveal your position.
* Attacking at long range doesnít impose disadvantage on your ranged weapon attack rolls.

Where does that third point fit in? Wasn't there originally, and doesn't fit the description "You are expert at slinking through shadows".
It used to be "Dim light doesn't impose disadvantage on your Wisdom (Perception) checks relying on sight."

Ugganaut
2017-12-16, 01:08 AM
Have a read over Sorcerer between visitors.

I got completely lost on Origin Form in Shapeshifter. It sounds like either
a) You do change into your stated origin form like a 5e druid, which would be so insanely overpowered at lvl 1, so assuming its not that.
b) No matter if you're a polar bear, ancient wyrm or death slaad, you get the exact same benefits, which is a tough hide, unarmed strike(that increases rapidly), and 30ft of Darkvision.
There is no mention of change to hit points, size(eg frost giant), things like a shadow being incorporeal, or a dragon flying etc. If none of these things change, and a human sorcerer is still a medium humanoid with 1HD and a movement speed of 30ft walking only, then why state "You take the form of a Frost Giant/Dragon.", when you actually can't? And if your origin form is Shadow or giant(as an example), and you gain none of its properties or size, what natural weapon are they using? A medium sized giant is....a human, so maybe their strength increases or something?

I think I get what you're trying to set up here, but it doesn't feel right with every origin having identical benefits(Hide/Claws/half DV). They would start to branch off from each other with the Sorcerous Origins features, but the idea of a Dragon and a Shadow fighting the same way doesn't feel right.

Infused Strike references bonded weapon throughout.

Kryx
2017-12-28, 11:56 AM
Just got back from vacation, apologies for the delay.


Skulker
Prerequisite: Dexterity 13 or higher
You are expert at slinking through shadows. You gain the following benefits:
* You can try to hide when you are lightly obscured from the creature from which you are hiding.
* When you are hidden from a creature and miss it with a ranged weapon attack, making the attack doesnít reveal your position.
* Attacking at long range doesnít impose disadvantage on your ranged weapon attack rolls.

Where does that third point fit in? Wasn't there originally, and doesn't fit the description "You are expert at slinking through shadows".
It used to be "Dim light doesn't impose disadvantage on your Wisdom (Perception) checks relying on sight."
The talent is geared more toward sharpshooting. The second bullet is only valuable for ranged weapons so it seems to make sense to focus on that. Now the feat allows you to hide a beat easiter and makes attacking with ranged weapons while hidden better.


a) You do change into your stated origin form like a 5e druid, which would be so insanely overpowered at lvl 1, so assuming its not that.
The origin form does exactly what is listed. Nothing more, nothing less.


b) No matter if you're a polar bear, ancient wyrm or death slaad, you get the exact same benefits, which is a tough hide, unarmed strike(that increases rapidly), and 30ft of Darkvision.
There is no mention of change to hit points, size(eg frost giant), things like a shadow being incorporeal, or a dragon flying etc. If none of these things change, and a human sorcerer is still a medium humanoid with 1HD and a movement speed of 30ft walking only, then why state "You take the form of a Frost Giant/Dragon.", when you actually can't?
Correct, the things listed change while the things unlisted (hit points, size, etc) do not change. You'll also notice that the Circle of the Claw Naturalist does not change hit points, but adds a few temporary hit points on top of its normal hit points

Taking a form of something does not mean you gain everything that thing has - that's not how several features in 5e work. Wild Shape for example is very explicity with what you take from the new form.


unarmed strike(that increases rapidly).
Unarmed strikes start out at the same level as Alter Self and increase somewhat quickly. The Shapeshifter has few attacks compare to the Monk's many attacks, hence the quicker progression.
The Circle of the Claw Naturalist does 1d8 (equivalent to a longsword).
All of these numbers have been put into my DPR spreadsheet (https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1sGvcz9vbq9yk4kRBEY6ZYGWhGO6-t7CWudznQcWPk74/edit)


And if your origin form is Shadow or giant(as an example), and you gain none of its properties or size, what natural weapon are they using? A medium sized giant is....a human, so maybe their strength increases or something?
The giant now has huge fists that deal quite substantial damage as you've noticed - a strength boost isn't necessary to mimic a giant. A Shadow would use using "claws, fangs, spines, horns, or a different natural weapon of your choice" just like any other form.


I think I get what you're trying to set up here, but it doesn't feel right with every origin having identical benefits(Hide/Claws/half DV). They would start to branch off from each other with the Sorcerous Origins features, but the idea of a Dragon and a Shadow fighting the same way doesn't feel right.
The archetype would require many statblocks to perfectly mimic creatures. That isn't the goal that I saught. The goal was to provide rules that closely proximate the feeling of the creature that you shapeshift into. The rest is just fluff.


Infused Strike references bonded weapon throughout.
This has been fixed, thanks.

Ugganaut
2017-12-28, 06:47 PM
Just got back from vacation, apologies for the delay.
No problem, hope you enjoyed the vacation :smallsmile:


The talent is geared more toward sharpshooting. The second bullet is only valuable for ranged weapons so it seems to make sense to focus on that. Now the feat allows you to hide a beat easiter and makes attacking with ranged weapons while hidden better.
The talent description is about stealth, as is the first bullet. The second bullet is how ranged weapons interact with your stealth. The third bullet has nothing to do with stealth, its about skill. It belongs in a skill based talent, like Sharpshooter(General), or (Specific)Bow, Crossbow, Dagger etc. If those first two alone are a bit weak, then maybe something like "you know how to mask your scent, and can use your stealth against creatures with smell", or a limited advantage to stealth checks, like only in darkness(as opposed to darkness and dim light), or when certain weather conditions are met, or something like that. Something that interacts with the stealth theme.


Correct, the things listed change while the things unlisted (hit points, size, etc) do not change. You'll also notice that the Circle of the Claw Naturalist does not change hit points, but adds a few temporary hit points on top of its normal hit points. Taking a form of something does not mean you gain everything that thing has - that's not how several features in 5e work. Wild Shape for example is very explicity with what you take from the new form.
It is, but one thing you to take, is the actual form. In general, the way I saw 5e Wild Shape, was you physically take the form of a creature, but mentally you stay the same. You don't take the claws of the bear, the senses of the bear, you are physically an actual bear. So the new physical form gives you things like AC(you have bear hide, not your normal armor), Traits(like smell), Str/Dex/Con, but not things based on skill(you still know all your skills), unless part of that skill is due to the innate form being better at it(yours or theirs, whichever is higher). But your size changes, because you a literally something else. You can't take the shape of a bird at level 2 because it has flight from wings. It doesn't let you change into a bird at level 2, but without flight. That is the difference, at least in my opinion, between a form, and an aspect. The way it reads in yours, is that they all get aspects, no actual forms, like an actual dragon or giant from my original question. I hadn't read Druid yet in Naturalist, but it reads the same, you gain aspects, not form. You use your unarmed strike, just with claw damage. I haven't tried making a Druid/Monk, but it looks like you could use martial arts and flurry with this, because your are not actually the new form, you just have aspects of it.


The archetype would require many statblocks to perfectly mimic creatures. That isn't the goal that I saught. The goal was to provide rules that closely proximate the feeling of the creature that you shapeshift into. The rest is just fluff.
Yeah it's a hard one to balance numbers and fluff. I think aspects fit, the way you've done it, for the bigger combat things. You don't actually turn into a bear(as an example), you take aspects of one. You could have utility forms like birds, with low HP, that could work the way 5e Wildshape works - gaining its HP, getting knocked out to human form when reaching 0. So two seperate features, an aspects for combat, and a form one for small utility animals.
Or, you could do generic stat blocks - Medium Canine, Tiny Bird, Great Cat. Generalizing stat blocks would limit the amount of them you'd have to do up, but within them give a large variety for players to choose. Eg, you could "look" like a lynx or a tiger, but both use the Great Cat stat block. That way you can balance it a lot easier, instead of the normal 5e way of going to the Monsters Manual.


It's the holiday season, so its busy for another couple weeks here. I do intend to go through all your changes page by page, but for now it'll be random. I'm sure you're used to it :smallsmile:

Magus: At level 2, they get Weapon Bond, Arcane Channeling, Fighting Stance and Arcane Strike. I know you'd have the dpr balanced, but that is a lot of options gained in one level. Versatility is hard to add to a dpr chart.
Arcane Channeling seems to be balanced against Quicken Cantrip, and also adds the flavor of combining weapon and magic, so its mandatory imo, therefore so is Weapon Bond.
I think level 2 is a good spot for Fighting Stance, it's setting up your style.
Arcane Strike is an "improvement" on Arcane Channeling in a way, going from "add cantrip on hit", to "add spell effect on hit". I know that's not precisely summing them up, but hopefully you get my point.
Is there a spot further up the levels for Arcane Strike?

I know its balanced against Paladin, but they get Channel Div 1/short rest, not Arcane Channeling at-will. So Smite for them both makes sense for versatility balance, and is a core part of the Paladin. For Magus, mixing weapon and spells is the core, and its covered already by Arcane Channeling.

Kryx
2017-12-29, 02:36 AM
The talent description is about stealth, as is the first bullet. The second bullet is how ranged weapons interact with your stealth. The third bullet has nothing to do with stealth, its about skill. It belongs in a skill based talent, like Sharpshooter(General), or (Specific)Bow, Crossbow, Dagger etc. If those first two alone are a bit weak, then maybe something like "you know how to mask your scent, and can use your stealth against creatures with smell", or a limited advantage to stealth checks, like only in darkness(as opposed to darkness and dim light), or when certain weather conditions are met, or something like that. Something that interacts with the stealth theme.
Lets examine all the lines:

You can try to hide when you are lightly obscured from the creature from which you are hiding. This line allows you to hide more easily - in and out of combat. Both would be used.
When you are hidden from a creature and miss it with a ranged weapon attack, making the attack doesnít reveal your position. This line is 100% ranged combat oriented. It has value in common with the first line as the first line allows you to hide more easily and this line allows you to sniper from ranged.
(Houserules) Attacking at long range doesnít impose disadvantage on your ranged weapon attack rolls. The second line is purely ranged combat oriented. The first line enables the second line, both in and out of combat. This line expands on the combat aspect of ranged weapons - focusing on the flavor of sharpshooting.
(RAW, removed) Dim light doesnít impose disadvantage on your Wisdom (Perception) checks relying on sight. This line has absolutely no place with the other 2 RAW lines. It is about sight. Ignoring the penalties of dim light is what many use as a 5e homebrew for low light vision.

The theme isn't pure stealth. It is stealth, primarily, for ranged attack purposes. Without a ranged weapon the talent is incredibly weak. The first line could belong in another talent that doesn't focus on ranged attacks, but the 2nd line cements the ranged stealth role of this talent. The replaced line adds on to that theme where the RAW version did not.


But your size changes, because you a literally something else. You can't take the shape of a bird at level 2 because it has flight from wings. It doesn't let you change into a bird at level 2, but without flight. That is the difference, at least in my opinion, between a form, and an aspect.
If a character takes the form of a spider that form can vary in size from tiny spider to huge spider. The same is true for every form. One could become a medium sized dragon for example. Size is not necessary for a form. A medium sized giant is not beyond this line by any measure. There are several examples of races that are effectively giants (Firbolg, Goliath), but are still medium size. Changing size to large would be a huge disadvantage in most cases.


The way it reads in yours, is that they all get aspects, no actual forms, like an actual dragon or giant from my original question.
A shapechanger, in historical depiction and D&D depiction, is often a hybrid between your form and the form you take. For example Lycanthropes would historically be considered a shapechanger and their shape is often not a quadrupedal wolf, but a bipedal humanoid wolf. That is a shapechanger. Changing to the actual animal is the purview of the Naturalist, not the Shapechanger.


I hadn't read Druid yet in Naturalist, but it reads the same, you gain aspects, not form. You use your unarmed strike, just with claw damage. I haven't tried making a Druid/Monk, but it looks like you could use martial arts and flurry with this, because your are not actually the new form, you just have aspects of it.
The Naturalist is not an aspect either. The Naturalist takes the form of the creature, though the mechanical approach is different than RAW. The 5e approach is quite flawed in that only a few forms are good while the rest are quite bad due to each creature having wildly different damage. I have long wanted to remove that approach as it stifles player choice of forms. Pathfinder took the same approach in standardizing the damage from Wild Shape. It is the more balanced approach and the approach that allows the players the freedom to think in flavor instead of the best mechanics for damage.

I could potentially reduce the damage for wild shape forms smaller than medium, but that's icing on the cake.


Magus: At level 2, they get Weapon Bond, Arcane Channeling, Fighting Stance and Arcane Strike. I know you'd have the dpr balanced, but that is a lot of options gained in one level. Versatility is hard to add to a dpr chart.
Arcane Channeling seems to be balanced against Quicken Cantrip, and also adds the flavor of combining weapon and magic, so its mandatory imo, therefore so is Weapon Bond.
I think level 2 is a good spot for Fighting Stance, it's setting up your style.
Arcane Strike is an "improvement" on Arcane Channeling in a way, going from "add cantrip on hit", to "add spell effect on hit". I know that's not precisely summing them up, but hopefully you get my point.
Is there a spot further up the levels for Arcane Strike?

I know its balanced against Paladin, but they get Channel Div 1/short rest, not Arcane Channeling at-will. So Smite for them both makes sense for versatility balance, and is a core part of the Paladin. For Magus, mixing weapon and spells is the core, and its covered already by Arcane Channeling.
Check page 25 of for the comparison across the gish classes. Magus is not unique in the quality of features it gets at 2nd level. But I think you're overvaluing them so let me analyze them here:

Weapon Bond is a fluff feature that has minor mechanical prowess. The only time this kind of feature would make an impact in game is producing a weapon after being disarmed (via jail, meeting the king, etc). It's largely inconsequential.
Fighting Stance is on every martial and every gish. It's a small damage boost (~11% (https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1sGvcz9vbq9yk4kRBEY6ZYGWhGO6-t7CWudznQcWPk74/edit#gid=582756521)). This is one of the factors that sets martials and gishes apart from casters and allows them to excel in martial combat. Every Gish in RAW 5e has it.
Arcane Strike This is comparable to Paladin smites. It allows use of mana for special effects on attacks. That said I think you've overvalued the mana pool of gishes. At level 5 for example a Magus has 5 mana. That's effectively 2 uses of Arcane Strike per short rest, and they cannot be on the same turn. The Wizard has 10 mana, allowing him to use fireball twice or spread the mana around in other ways. Fireball twice is likely far more effective than 2 Arcane Strikes. Additionally the Wizard's cantrip damage is significantly higher than RAW. By RAW a caster is doing ~25% of the damage of a GWM Fighter. With Quickened Cantrips it's ~51% and with a talent investment it's ~70%.
Arcane Channeling is effectively similar to Hex or Hunter's Mark in that it adds a small amount of damage. In the case of Hex and Hunter's Mark those classes get other boosts at 11th level allowing them to keep up in damage (Warlock has +int to damage, Ranger has Multiattack, Paladin has Divine Strike). The Magus keeps up in damage by cantrip's natural scaling.

Gishes are comparable to one another, achieving quite similar damage thresholds in very different ways. I believe you have quite overvalued gishes versus casters with the boost that casters received. If anything the Barbarian, Fighter, and Rogue needs a tiny bit of love (through some kind of martial utility, but that's always super hard to achieve in D&D).

Ugganaut
2017-12-29, 04:51 AM
Lets examine all the lines:

You can try to hide when you are lightly obscured from the creature from which you are hiding. This line allows you to hide more easily - in and out of combat. Both would be used.
When you are hidden from a creature and miss it with a ranged weapon attack, making the attack doesnít reveal your position. This line is 100% ranged combat oriented. It has value in common with the first line as the first line allows you to hide more easily and this line allows you to sniper from ranged.
(Houserules) Attacking at long range doesnít impose disadvantage on your ranged weapon attack rolls. The second line is purely ranged combat oriented. The first line enables the second line, both in and out of combat. This line expands on the combat aspect of ranged weapons - focusing on the flavor of sharpshooting.
(RAW, removed) Dim light doesnít impose disadvantage on your Wisdom (Perception) checks relying on sight. This line has absolutely no place with the other 2 RAW lines. It is about sight. Ignoring the penalties of dim light is what many use as a 5e homebrew for low light vision.

The theme isn't pure stealth. It is stealth, primarily, for ranged attack purposes. Without a ranged weapon the talent is incredibly weak. The first line could belong in another talent that doesn't focus on ranged attacks, but the 2nd line cements the ranged stealth role of this talent. The replaced line adds on to that theme where the RAW version did not.
"Skulker: You are expert at slinking through shadows" - PHB. My halfling rogue had it, as he didn't have darkvision(we don't use whatever homebrew solution you were referring to). Hide in lightly obscured was the primary feature him, the Dim Light no disadvantage was second(for him), and the ranged part was just gravy(he was melee oriented primarily, but it was useful if throwing his daggers). If you remove the sight part, add in the long range part, it's definitely more Sharpshooter than Skulker.


Changing to the actual animal is the purview of the Naturalist, not the Shapechanger.
The Shapeshifter I see what your saying, the Origin Form isn't actually a "form" like the Naturalist. You look like a human/dragon hybrid, just with non-functional wings and no breath weapon or resistances. Or a Lich that isn't a Lich(eg. Undead, immunities) in any regard other than visual, and some generic combat abilities. If there is too much variation, many will gravitate to the strongest option as you said.



The Naturalist is not an aspect either. The Naturalist takes the form of the creature, though the mechanical approach is different than RAW. The 5e approach is quite flawed in that only a few forms are good while the rest are quite bad due to each creature having wildly different damage. I have long wanted to remove that approach as it stifles player choice of forms. Pathfinder took the same approach in standardizing the damage from Wild Shape. It is the more balanced approach and the approach that allows the players the freedom to think in flavor instead of the best mechanics for damage.
Something like Alter Self is more aspect, and it uses unarmed strike. I think when I read Wildshape altered your unarmed strike instead of changing it to a claw/bite attack, I saw potential issue with multi-classing into something like Monk, with its Martial Arts and Flurry of Blows. Could get some cool synergy, like an Iron Mountain Monk 3/Wildshape Brown Bear combo. Not sure its an issue though, was just a thought.



Check page 25 of for the comparison across the gish classes. Magus is not unique in the quality of features it gets at 2nd level. But I think you're overvaluing them so let me analyze them here:

Weapon Bond is a fluff feature that has minor mechanical prowess. The only time this kind of feature would make an impact in game is producing a weapon after being disarmed (via jail, meeting the king, etc). It's largely inconsequential.
Fighting Stance is on every martial and every gish. It's a small damage boost (~11% (https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1sGvcz9vbq9yk4kRBEY6ZYGWhGO6-t7CWudznQcWPk74/edit#gid=582756521)). This is one of the factors that sets martials and gishes apart from casters and allows them to excel in martial combat. Every Gish in RAW 5e has it.
Arcane Strike This is comparable to Paladin smites. It allows use of mana for special effects on attacks. That said I think you've overvalued the mana pool of gishes. At level 5 for example a Magus has 5 mana. That's effectively 2 uses of Arcane Strike per short rest, and they cannot be on the same turn. The Wizard has 10 mana, allowing him to use fireball twice or spread the mana around in other ways. Fireball twice is likely far more effective than 2 Arcane Strikes. Additionally the Wizard's cantrip damage is significantly higher than RAW. By RAW a caster is doing ~25% of the damage of a GWM Fighter. With Quickened Cantrips it's ~51% and with a talent investment it's ~70%.
Arcane Channeling is effectively similar to Hex or Hunter's Mark in that it adds a small amount of damage. In the case of Hex and Hunter's Mark those classes get other boosts at 11th level allowing them to keep up in damage (Warlock has +int to damage, Ranger has Multiattack, Paladin has Divine Strike). The Magus keeps up in damage by cantrip's natural scaling.

Gishes are comparable to one another, achieving quite similar damage thresholds in very different ways. I believe you have quite overvalued gishes versus casters with the boost that casters received. If anything the Barbarian, Fighter, and Rogue needs a tiny bit of love (through some kind of martial utility, but that's always super hard to achieve in D&D).
Probably just a knee-jerk reaction on my part. I don't understand the numbers properly.

Kryx
2017-12-29, 05:29 AM
I have renamed Skulker to Sniper with the following description: "You are expert at slinking through shadows and your quick ranged attacks make you difficult to locate."
Seeing in dim light would be like giving darkvision as a talent. IMO it doesn't belong as a talent other than a racial talent or some other method.


The Shapeshifter I see what your saying, the Origin Form isn't actually a "form" like the Naturalist.
Shapeshifters transform. Transform:

a : to change in composition or structure
b : to change the outward form or appearance of
A shapeshifter definitely fulfills that definition.


I think when I read Wildshape altered your unarmed strike instead of changing it to a claw/bite attack
Natural weapons on PCs in 5e are generally unarmed strikes. https://rpg.stackexchange.com/questions/92330/do-natural-weapons-such-as-claws-count-as-weapon-attacks-or-unarmed-attacks discussed this. Crawford says that all natural weapons are not unarmored strikes, but all PC options that I know of besides wildshape are (a few shown in that post).

I think this is the cause for the confusion. I'm treating the natural weapons as unarmed strikes the same as those other features do.

Ugganaut
2017-12-29, 08:03 AM
I have renamed Skulker to Sniper with the following description: "You are expert at slinking through shadows and your quick ranged attacks make you difficult to locate."
Seeing in dim light would be like giving darkvision as a talent. IMO it doesn't belong as a talent other than a racial talent or some other method.
Sniper suits well.
I've done my first draft of Races for my home campaign I'm making. It uses traits, so non-darkvision races can choose to take it, but its at the cost of choosing something they'd normally get. Always found those without darkvision are at a nasty disadvantage in a lot of our campaigns, hence the use of the Skulker feat for the halfling.


I think this is the cause for the confusion. I'm treating the natural weapons as unarmed strikes the same as those other features do.
As long as it can't be exploited by things that apply to unarmed strikes, but not natural weapons, it shouldn't be an issue mechanically.

Ugganaut
2017-12-30, 02:14 AM
One of our group is a climber(small guy), and doesn't agree that Athletics should be strictly strength based.
In your new version of Skills, you've seperated it into Brawn and Athletics. Was wondering what you thought about adding "Strength or Dexterity" to the entries on Climbing, Jumping, Swimming?
Don't see many Str20 looking long jumpers in the Olympics, but it does make sense that strength plays some part, so thought "Strength or Dexterity" was the half-way point.
Wasn't sure about the last entry in Athletics, Control Vehicle. Maybe "Strength or Dexterity" for the lot might be appropriate?

Kryx
2017-12-30, 03:00 AM
One of our group is a climber(small guy), and doesn't agree that Athletics should be strictly strength based.
In your new version of Skills, you've seperated it into Brawn and Athletics. Was wondering what you thought about adding "Strength or Dexterity" to the entries on Climbing, Jumping, Swimming?
Don't see many Str20 looking long jumpers in the Olympics, but it does make sense that strength plays some part, so thought "Strength or Dexterity" was the half-way point.
Wasn't sure about the last entry in Athletics, Control Vehicle. Maybe "Strength or Dexterity" for the lot might be appropriate?
I would refer to the many forum posts on this topic. For example (first google result): https://forum.rpg.net/showthread.php?605597-Climbing-should-it-be-DEX-or-STR. Specifically:

In real life, of course, most athletic tasks require a certain level of strength and a certain level of agility: climbing, tackling, throwing fastballs, taking a wrist shot, whatever--it's a combination that varies with the action.

For the level of abstraction 4e presents, at least, I'm thoroughly comfortable with STR-based Athletics for climbing (perhaps with an Endurance check for a long climb) and DEX-based Acrobatics for falling.

I think allowing Dexterity erodes Strength's value in the game. I'm not one to claim that Dex > Str as the comparison simply isn't there, but Strength has limited uses in 5e and also in my rules. Removing Athletics from those uses, in terms of balance, is a poor choice imo.

That said the 5e developers recognize that the rogue (thief) for example is known to be a climber and they included a feature under their thief subclass:

When you choose this archetype at 3rd level, you gain the ability to climb faster than normal; climbing no longer costs you extra movement.

In addition, when you make a running jump, the distance you cover increases by a number of feet equal to your Dexterity modifier.
The climbing without losing extra movement already exists as a talent in Athlete. It's effectively climbing speed:

A monster that has a climbing speed can use all or part of its movement to move on vertical surfaces. The monster doesn't need to spend extra movement to climb

I previously removed the static numbers for jumping distances and heights so the second line wouldn't matter in my games, though looking at it again that may have been a grognard decision. I'll think on it.

Ugganaut
2017-12-30, 04:44 AM
One thing that comes up in our adventures, is grappling, in particular from larger monsters(like constrict or swallow type creatures). The check for that is Athletics or Acrobatics, so gives both Str and Dex an option. In your system, that now goes to Brawn, which when I converted characters, realized I didn't have a spare skill for it, because they were good climbers. You've actually given an extra bit to Str with separating it into Athletics and Brawn. That's one reason I thought it might work, and not upset balance.

Another thing, is you've changed it to "Almost always roll for climbing, swimming, etc". So the halfling rogue(I swear they used to be good at climbing), who usually has low strength in my experience, will more often fail. The thief can climb faster, but that doesn't help if you fail the roll, which in your system you almost always roll[Edit].

I guess I don't like the idea of the rogue, who's primary stat is dex, is not good at climbing up buildings to steal things. In 5e, Athletics skill encompassed a lot, so we just accepted it and had one party member get spiderclimb to help the rogue do the job he should already be able to do. In your system, most of the pure str aspect was moved to Brawn, so it looked like their might be more room for Athletics to have the dual stat(Str or Dex), without favoring Dex(as Str gained the Brawn skill).

Kryx
2017-12-30, 05:18 AM
One thing that comes up in our adventures, is grappling, in particular from larger monsters(like constrict or swallow type creatures). The check for that is Athletics or Acrobatics, so gives both Str and Dex an option. In your system, that now goes to Brawn, which when I converted characters, realized I didn't have a spare skill for it, because they were good climbers. You've actually given an extra bit to Str with separating it into Athletics and Brawn. That's one reason I thought it might work, and not upset balance.
Brawn isn't as valuable as you may think to a Dex character:

Grapple - little value as it's only useful for grapplers, otherwise easily ignored
Escape a Grapple - not valuable as Acrobatics can do the same
Escaping Restraints - not valuable as Acrobatics can do the same
Overrun - not valuable as Acrobatics can do the same (Tumble)
Shove - minor value, easily ignored
Break down doors - Finesse can handle locks

The other cases are niche.
Overall Brawn does nothing to offset the balance between Strength and Dexterity - it just moved some items that were in Athletics over to Brawn. The amount of items is still the same.


Another thing, is you've changed it to "Almost always roll for climbing, swimming, etc". So the halfling rogue(I swear they used to be good at climbing), who usually has low strength in my experience, will more often fail.
Without rolling there is little value in Climb, Jump, or Swimming (Athletics). I'm not sure what the best path here is, but the default 5e rules neuter Athletics so that doesn't seem like the best option.


I guess I don't like the idea of the rogue, who's primary stat is dex, is not good at climbing up buildings to steal things. In 5e, Athletics skill encompassed a lot, so we just accepted it and had one party member get spiderclimb to help the rogue do the job he should already be able to do. In your system, most of the pure str aspect was moved to Brawn, so it looked like their might be more room for Athletics to have the dual stat(Str or Dex), without favoring Dex(as Str gained the Brawn skill).
In regards to a low Strength character failing at Strength based skills: Well, that's by design. I would also expect low intelligence characters to not do well at Arcana, or low Wisdom characters to not do well with Perception. That's D&D with an ability score system. D&D ability scores are an abstraction. Players will continually push and push for ways to avoid their dump stats if allowed. I believe allowing that would be a mistake - those players chose those dump stats and ability score choices should matter.
If you want players to succeed more regularly I'd recommend increasing point buy - I raised mine to 35 from 27 for example. This allows for more freedom for gish characters and allows players to avoid dump stats should they so choose.

By choosing to allow a character to use Dexterity for Athletics you've left Strength with so little value that everyone should dump it besides Strength based martials imo.

I would highly recommend not allowing Dexterity for Athletics in the vast majority of cases for balance reasons. If you choose to pursue it for flavor reasons then I'd suggest using the average of Strength and Dexterity as the modifier. I'm afraid by offering this you'll latch on to the average idea - I wouldn't recommend it without doing it across the board.

Ugganaut
2017-12-30, 06:08 AM
Without rolling there is little value in Climb, Jump, or Swimming (Athletics). I'm not sure what the best path here is, but the default 5e rules neuter Athletics so that doesn't seem like the best option.

In regards to a low Strength character failing at Strength based skills: Well, that's by design. I would also expect low intelligence characters to not do well at Arcana, or low Wisdom characters to not do well with Perception.
My issue is a class not being able to do its intended job, with the primary stats it is assumed to have.



I would highly recommend not allowing Dexterity for Athletics in the vast majority of cases for balance reasons.
I agree with your assessment. Then maybe the solution is to allow those specific cases to use Dexterity or Strength for Athletics. The Rogue class for starters(Thief can then climb faster as normal, so they are better than the average rogue). Something like the Fighter's Remarkable Athlete/Acrobat feature. I think its general enough to apply to all rogues, and gained at level 1-2.

I'd love to increase our point buy for the reasons you listed, unfortunately I'm outvoted on that one, so my halfling has Str 8, because I also needed him to find traps(in 5e thats Int), talk his way out if he gets caught(Cha). Need to make sure the coast is clear(Wis). It gets very M.A.D within a single class, something had to give(Str and Con).

Kryx
2017-12-30, 08:16 AM
I think this line of discussion is a can of worms. Balance for example requires Sstrength as well as Dexterity, so we should make that an average of Str/Dex as well.
Ability score usage is an abstraction and shouldn't be argued over or the can of worms starts and ability scores stop mattering.

On that topic: http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?482350-What-if-we-removed-Abilities and http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?374716-5E-Without-Ability-Scores both remove ability scores which I think are super interesting projects, but my players have never gone for it.


Then maybe the solution is to allow those specific cases to use Dexterity or Strength for Athletics.
The last post is full of me recommending to not do this. It makes Strength worthless as an ability score to anything other than a Strength based martial.


The Rogue class for starters(Thief can then climb faster as normal, so they are better than the average rogue). Something like the Fighter's Remarkable Athlete/Acrobat feature. I think its general enough to apply to all rogues, and gained at level 1-2.
Why can't the monk climb, or jump, or swim just as well as the rogue? Attaching it to the Rogue isn't a solid "fix" if one is desired.


I also needed him to find traps(in 5e thats Int)
Finding traps is not Int. Investigation is used for understanding traps or uncovering clues. Perception is used for finding them. You can see the same message reflected by other threads on this topic.


talk his way out if he gets caught(Cha). Need to make sure the coast is clear(Wis). It gets very M.A.D within a single class, something had to give(Str and Con).
Sounds like you're trying to do too much. Your character can't be good at everything. That's the point of ability scores. You have to choose the strengths that you want your character to have. If you choose more Charisma then you have less Strength for example. This is how D&D works.

We're far off topic from my rules here. I'd suggest opening a new thread about Athletics if you feel so inclined.

Kryx
2017-12-30, 09:23 AM
December 30th, 2017 (https://bitbucket.org/mlenser/5ehomebrew/wiki/Changelog#markdown-header-december-30th-2017)
Monk

Added Drunken Master

Naturalist

Circle of the Claw turned into Shifter archetype

Sorcerer

Slight adjustments to Shapeshifter

Zezzy
2017-12-31, 10:39 PM
Wow, don't know how I missed that mana update, as I have still been using that older document until now. I'm really liking these changes.

I have one question however. In the old document a sorcerer's eidolon could take the "Large" evolution to increase its size. In the new document, there is no evolution that can make an eidolon larger than medium from what I see.

I know you said that changing size to large would usually be a disadvantage. Was that why it was removed? I was wanting to transfer over a sorcerer that used a large eidolon as a mount, and don't how I could best bring back that evolution.

Kryx
2018-01-01, 07:20 AM
Large was removed because in 5e monster hp and damage are determined by size. So a large eidolon should have d10 hd for being large and do extra damage on its attacks. If those are given then that evolution would be an OP option. If those are not given then the eidolon does not align with 5e monsters.

In PF, where the Summoner originates, all the Eidolons are Medium size by default, but there is a large evolution, though it costs 4 points in their system. If it cost 2 evolutions in my system then it'd be more fairly priced, but I don't have such a point system for simplicity. Even then I think allowing it would make it the go to option because it is so strong. It would likely present balance problems.

Ugganaut
2018-01-02, 06:15 PM
Evasive Footwork: Is that like a free dodge each round(using your Combat Superiority for that round)? The PHB was only against opportunity attacks.

Edit: Ignore that. Thought it was till end of your next turn, not end of turn.

Ugganaut
2018-01-03, 12:11 AM
"Called Shot
Once on your turn before you make a weapon attack that you
are proficient with, you can choose to have disadvantage on
the attack roll. If the attack hits, you add twice your proficiency
bonus to the attackís damage."

Is that assuming you don't already have one or more disadvantages on the roll?

Kryx
2018-01-03, 04:54 AM
I'll modify that to:

Once on your turn before you make a weapon attack that you are proficient with and you donít have disadvantage on the attack roll, you can choose to have disadvantage on the attack roll. If the attack hits, you add twice your proficiency bonus to the attackís damage.

Kryx
2018-01-03, 10:39 AM
January 3rd, 2018 (https://bitbucket.org/mlenser/5ehomebrew/wiki/Changelog#markdown-header-january-3rd-2018)
Spells

Steel Wind Strike moved to Mage / Ranger / Soulknife

Psionic Spells

Attraction / Aversion removed for Antipathy / Sympathy
All Psionic Augmentation scaling adjusted to match spell slot values


January 2nd, 2018 (https://bitbucket.org/mlenser/5ehomebrew/wiki/Changelog#markdown-header-january-2nd-2018)
All Classes

Talent progressions changed to progress in a more even pattern instead of slowing down at later levels. This also has the benefit of limiting the value of a multiclass dip.
Caster old-: 0, 0, 2, 2, 3, 3, 4, 4, 5, 5, 5, 6, 6, 6, 7, 7, 7, 8, 8, 8
Caster new: 0, 0, 1, 1, 2, 2, 3, 3, 4, 4, 5, 5, 6, 6, 7, 7, 8, 8, 9, 9
Martial old-: 0, 0, 1, 1, 1, 2, 2, 2, 3, 3, 3, 4, 4, 4, 5, 5, 5, 6, 6, 6
Martial new: 0, 0, 1, 1, 1, 2, 2, 2, 3, 3, 3, 4, 4, 4, 5, 5, 6, 6, 7, 7

Acolyte (Paladin) / Psionicist (Soulknife)

Knife to the Soul / Staggering Smite reduced from 3rd level to 2nd level. Damage reduced from 4d6 to 3d6. Based on a comment on my Spell Balance sheet: https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1N4QC6EmXE0avgk8jK1aubJcaFoZDYw8b_DuPHh8aBTc/edit?disco=AAAABij-Y7k

Psionics

Disrupt Pattern increased to 1d6 from 1d4.


January 1st, 2018 (https://bitbucket.org/mlenser/5ehomebrew/wiki/Changelog#markdown-header-january-1st-2018)
Sorcerer/ Naturalist

Shapeshifter and Shifter no longer use unarmed strikes. They now use natural weapons.

Kryx
2018-01-04, 04:04 AM
Moving a PM discussion to here. Based on the ability to multiclass a fighter: https://bitbucket.org/mlenser/tabletophomebrew/issues/75/restore-superiority-dice


In my case(B5/F3), I'll have Riposte and Pushing Attack. I have AC13, and attack Reckless almost constantly. You don't always want to push people, and with advantage to attack me, Riposte will rarely go off.
I believe your case is actually a prime example of the abuse that exists in a resource-less fighter.

For example if you are missed (rare) you can attack back. More commonly though you are hit at which point 20 damage becomes 10 and then 10 is reduced by proficiency bonus + Dexterity modifier via parry. This reaction makes a Barbarian significantly more tanky than expected. I'd definitely consider it an abuse.


Precision attack, in particular, can be used every attack to get +prof to every attack,". No it can't. It can be used ONCE every round, not on every attack. +double Prof once per round I don't see as OP for a dip.
Lets assume each attack is ~65% chance to hit as that is the norm. With 2 attacks each round you're more likely to hit both, but with this reaction your chance to hit both attacks would likely go up by a significant amount (~20%). It's an incredibly strong dip for a barbarian who has big damage on few hits.


I strongly urge against returning to SD, because that has far more potential for abuse.
SD have room for burst abuse, but they'd burn quickly. Either way I'd add a once per turn limit to whatever resource system like I do for mana attacks.


The fighter is a prime candidate for dipping. I should surely implement some kind of stamina or dice based resource system.
I'm leaning toward a stamina system (similar to ki) currently.

Ugganaut
2018-01-04, 06:17 AM
I've got Pushing Attack and Riposte, but was considering getting Parry if I took another level in Fighter. I see your point though. Didn't seem like much to me, because my Dex is 10, but I guess if you had some Dex, it would make a Barbarian stronger than intended.

I think I'd prefer short rest Stamina over dice, to avoid the burst issues mentioned earlier. It'd probably work nicely, with the stronger ones costing more perhaps?

When talking it over with my DM for this game, we both liked the idea of Fighters having a meaningful decision to make each round from their suite of CM's. But I'd rather a Stamina system than no multi-classing. See how it plays this weekend as it is. I just won't take Parry :smallsmile:

Ugganaut
2018-01-07, 03:21 PM
On your third Short Rest in a day(before a long rest), you don't gain the benefits of the rest. Can you still spend hit dice to regain hit points(but not regain one quarter of your hit dice), or is spending hit dice considered a benefit?

Kryx
2018-01-07, 03:23 PM
At the end of a short rest a character regains Hit Dice equal to one forth its level (minimum of one die) and can spend one or more Hit Dice. The player can decide to spend an additional Hit Die after each roll.
Spending Hit Dice is part of a short rest.

Keep in mind I also use Healing Surge:

As an action, a character can use a healing surge and spend up to half his or her Hit Dice. A character who uses a healing surge canít do so again until he or she finishes a short or long rest.

Kryx
2018-01-07, 03:25 PM
January 6th, 2018 (https://bitbucket.org/mlenser/5ehomebrew/wiki/Changelog#markdown-header-january-6th-2018)
Houserules

Stacking Advantage. Each advantage/disadvantage pair cancels out. After resolving, if you have multiple advantage or multiple disadvantage you roll one additional dice. For example two advantage and no disadvantage on an attack would roll 3d20 and keep the highest 1 or 4d10 and keep the highest 2.

Mana Attacks (Smite, Arcane Strike, etc)

Paladin, Magus, Skald, Ranger, Shifter, Hexblade, Soulknife, and Shapeshifter start with 2 mana attacks and learn a new one every other level.
Mana attacks have the following included to avoid multiclass: You can use only one X per turn that you have not expended ki, mana, or stamina to deal extra damage with an attack.

Fighter

Stamina added so the fighter is no longer resource-less. Resource based is too important for balance.
Parry changed to +2 AC
Precision Attack changed to +2 to hit.

Ugganaut
2018-01-07, 03:40 PM
Spending Hit Dice is part of a short rest.

Keep in mind I also use Healing Surge:

Ah yes. This is the issue with only using part of a larger system. Also had to revert Two-Weapon Fighting Stance to "off-hand damage", because he has the 5e Dual Wielder feat for AC and Draw two weapons. I realize now, because he uses scimitars, the TWF Stance in yours wouldn't actually give him any benefit, as drawing two light weapons is a free in the "part of a move" list.
I thought it was kind of odd, that TWF stance was about using and draw one-handed weapons, and the Dual Wielder talent had the off-hand damage and +1 AC. What was the reasoning for that?
Feels like TWF stance would have the off-hand damage, and using two longswords should require the extra training in the form of a Talent.

Kryx
2018-01-07, 03:47 PM
TWF in 5e, is absolutely terrible. It was bad in older editions, but in 5e it's really really bad by RAW.

TWF stance is for larger weapons as the stance is used by classes like Fighter, Paladin, Magus, Barbarian, etc.
The talent is for offhand damage.
RAW the two are reversed which makes no sense for a rogue taking the feat as rogues use smaller weapons.

Drawing two light weapons as an object interaction should've been part of RAW. Every depiction of TWF is both weapons are drawn at once, not one and then another 6 seconds later.

Ugganaut
2018-01-07, 04:58 PM
TWF in 5e, is absolutely terrible. It was bad in older editions, but in 5e it's really really bad by RAW.
Absolutely.


TWF stance is for larger weapons as the stance is used by classes like Fighter, Paladin, Magus, Barbarian, etc.
I agree larger weapons are for those classes.


RAW the two are reversed which makes no sense for a rogue taking the feat as rogues use smaller weapons.
Why should a rogue be encouraged to take the feat? The only rogues I've seen dual wielding, was purely for the purpose for the off-hand attack to try get their Sneak Attack off. Never saw one take Dual Wielder(RAW) feat for the AC bonus, and not sure why they should need extra encouragement to dual wield with offhand +stat damage, when they already get the benefit of a second attack to trigger SA. With your TWF fighting rules making the off-hand attack free(which I totally agree with), Rogues having access to the off-hand +stat damage through a talent, seems a bit strong.


Drawing two light weapons as an object interaction should've been part of RAW. Every depiction of TWF is both weapons are drawn at once, not one and then another 6 seconds later.
Couldn't agree more.

Our fighter is originally from a region where scimitars where the common fighter weapon, and he dual wields them. It just feels odd that this fighter in the TWF Stance, gains no benefit, and both he and a rogue are equally good at fighting in this way if both have(or don't have) the DW talent(until Extra Attack).

Edit: Stances are general training that all Fighters get(and others of course). The standard feels like you'd train with lighter weapons, or a longsword and shield etc. Training to fight with two longswords feels more specialist, they are quite unwieldy, and that sounds more like a feat/talent. Could be just me of course.

Kryx
2018-01-07, 05:10 PM
Why should a rogue be encouraged to take the feat?
Why should a rogue not be encouraged to take the feat? TWF is the best possibly fighting technique that a rogue can use and the appropriate feat/talent not working for them makes no sense.

+AC is definitely valuable to a rogue as well.


With your TWF fighting rules making the off-hand attack free(which I totally agree with), Rogues having access to the off-hand +stat damage through a talent, seems a bit strong.
Every martial can increase their damage with a feat/talent. Why not rogues?

Rogues are at the appropriate damage level with +dex on offhand. 1 handed weapons (with no shield) could be improved for every martial. They are a bad choice for all classes, but that doesn't mean we should nerf TWF as a result.

One option for a rogue is to allow a d8 on sneak attack if only wielding 1 weapon and no shield. It's still below TWF, but more comparable:

5th level:
TWF Rogue: 21 DPR
Rapier Rogue: 16 DPR

11th level:
TWF Rogue: 32 DPR
Rapier Rogue: 27 DPR

17th level:
TWF Rogue: 41 DPR
Rapier Rogue: 36 DPR


It just feels odd that this fighter in the TWF Stance, gains no benefit, and both he and a rogue are equally good at fighting in this way if both have(or don't have) the DW talent(until Extra Attack).
Equally odd that the same fighter would gain no benefit from the feat by RAW. I'd suggest such a fighter learn to use long scimitars (longsword stats).

Ugganaut
2018-01-07, 05:51 PM
Why should a rogue not be encouraged to take the feat? TWF is the best possibly fighting technique that a rogue can use and the appropriate feat/talent not working for them makes no sense.
+AC is definitely valuable to a rogue as well.
Without the feat, TWF is still the best possibly fighting technique - extra chance to get the SA. My issue isn't with the rogue being rewarded for fighting with two weapons, they already get the reward. My issue is, unless the fighter uses two d8 weapons, their fighting stance does nothing. If he's a TWF Dex fighter, he uses rapiers, or he loses damage, and until Extra Attack, has the equivalent skill level in the fighting style as the rogue. Which feels like its funneling all TWF Fighters into strength builds, unless you really love the idea of rapiers.



Every martial can increase their damage with a feat/talent. Why not rogues?
Agreed. Maybe rogues need a feat/talent tailored to them, that is more to do with "rogue style", than a particular fighting style. Being extremely simplistic, but "Extra Sneak Attacky: You can add your Dexterity modifier to damage on Sneak Attack once on your turn". Rogues not using TWF can benefit. Rogues TWF still get the extra chance to get SA to trigger.


Rogues are at the appropriate damage level with +dex on offhand. 1 handed weapons (with no shield) could be improved for every martial. They are a bad choice for all classes, but that doesn't mean we should nerf TWF as a result.
Not trying to nerf TWF. I'm looking for it to benefit the different users of the style, in the style of their class, and not force particular builds, or "punish" players for making legitimate flavor choices.
A level 1, a Fighter with general training in all stances, probably shouldn't be able to wield two longswords - that seems like a specialist to me at least. If he uses two shortswords, he should gain a benefit from being in that stance, he has trained in the various styles of fighting - more than a non-warrior like a rogue, who at level 1 decides to use two shortswords. The rogue has been trained to sneak attack.

In your system, the dual shortsword/scimitar fighter gets no benefit from TWF Stance. So he uses Defense stance. Its not his primary style, but its at least a benefit, and works well with DW talent, for +2 AC and offhand stat damage.
At level 9, Fighters get two stances. Any other stance he chooses, is useless for his fighting style. This seems wrong.


Equally odd that the same fighter would gain no benefit from the feat by RAW. I'd suggest such a fighter learn to use long scimitars (longsword stats).
By RAW, you're right, he was not happy having to take a feat just to draw his two scimitars, which is all the feat gave him. It sucked. You're changes fixed that part.
He's more dex based. I guess could change to Rapier stats, but slashing damage. Shouldn't need to invent/change a weapon to accommodate a valid build choice. A fighter dual weilding short swords for example isn't odd(Ganicus from the Sparticus tv show, a Gladiator, which seems like a fighter/warrior type). Light weapons are easier to dual wield. But if you use that, the second Stance at level 9 is wasted.

Kryx
2018-01-07, 06:06 PM
My issue is, unless the fighter uses two d8 weapons, their fighting stance does nothing.
This is exactly the case for the Dual Wielder feat.


Maybe rogues need a feat/talent tailored to them, that is more to do with "rogue style", than a particular fighting style.
They have such a feat. It's called Dual Wielder. :)


I'm looking for it to benefit the different users of the style, in the style of their class, and not force particular builds, or "punish" players for making legitimate flavor choices.
That's a noble goal, but such goals should follow the flavor. Small weapons shouldn't magically deal more damage because a player wants a certain flavor choice. For example Daggers are generally worse for Rogues unless they throw regularly - that's just how the game is. Daggers shouldn't be upgraded to d6s to be comparable to shortswords.


A level 1, a Fighter with general training in all stances, probably shouldn't be able to wield two longswords - that seems like a specialist to me at least.
You could argue the same about applying +ability mod on the offhand which is the RAW. The argument doesn't hold water imo. Specializations come "early" in 5e compared to weapon specialization came at 4th level in 3.X.


At level 9, Fighters get two stances. Any other stance he chooses, is useless for his fighting style. This seems wrong.
No stances stack besides Defense. This is the exact case for every fighter. Either they choose defense and take the +1 AC or choose two and swap between melee and ranged weapons for example.


Ganicus from the Sparticus tv show, a Gladiator, which seems like a fighter/warrior type). Light weapons are easier to dual wield.
Gannicus is not wielding light weapons, they are longswords:
https://vignette.wikia.nocookie.net/spartacus/images/d/dd/Spartacus-gods-of-arena-21.jpg/revision/latest/scale-to-width-down/250?cb=20120617035430

Ugganaut
2018-01-07, 06:33 PM
That's a noble goal, but such goals should follow the flavor.
And Extra Sneak Attacky talent doesn't follow flavor? :) Dual Wielder feat's flavour makes sense if its +stat damage, or use one-handed weapons. Both follow flavor imo. It's just currently favoring the rogue over a fighter using the same dual shortswords, because at level 9, the fighter has no valid option to improve his primary fighting style.


Small weapons shouldn't magically deal more damage because a player wants a certain flavor choice. For example Daggers are generally worse for Rogues unless they throw regularly - that's just how the game is. Daggers shouldn't be upgraded to d6s to be comparable to shortswords.
Agreed, we are talking about off-hand damage though, not increase the weapons damage dice. I use daggers on my city rogue, because they are more easily concealable. I accept the damage drop, because its very minor. Rogues primary dpr doesn't come from damage dice, it comes from sneak attack. A level 20 rogue needs only hit once and get SA, and most of his damage is done, the extra attack from TWF increases that chance. Whether they roll a 1d4 or 1d8 on top of that for weapon damage, makes little difference.
A fighters comes from his damage dice, number of attacks, style(Archery is accuracy, GWF is higher average per hit), and a bit from CM's. Your TWF stance does add damage, but limits the dex fighter to one weapon.
For the rogue, dagger, shortsword and rapier are all finesse weapons, it doesn't make a huge difference.
If a Dex fighter wants to TWF, and make use of the TWF Stance, he has one option - Rapier, or be a sub-par fighter. At level 9, they have no option to enhance their fighting style.



You could argue the same about applying +ability mod on the offhand which is the RAW. The argument doesn't hold water imo. Specializations come "early" in 5e compared to weapon specialization came at 4th level in 3.X.
I should have stipulated, the General I'm talking about, is the stuff you get at level 1, the specialization is the Talent you choose later on, which further enhances your style.



No stances stack besides Defense. This is the exact case for every fighter. Either they choose defense and take the +1 AC or choose two and swap between melee and ranged weapons for example.
That is my point. The level 9 Dex Fighter chooses Defense, and....nothing. The Greataxe wielder choose GWF stance, and Defense fighting stance. As you said, its the same with all fighters, except a dex fighter who wants to dual wield melee weapons - his skill matches the rogue unless he too takes a liking to rapiers :P



Gannicus is not wielding light weapons, they are longswords
I stand corrected :smallsmile: I always thought they were shortswords.

Kryx
2018-01-07, 06:39 PM
The level 9 Dex Fighter chooses Defense, and....nothing.
This situation is exactly the same for a Fighter TWFing with daggers. I'm not going to design for a Fighter/Paladin/Barbarian wielding daggers with the goal of those daggers doing as much damage as longswords. Nor should I design for a Fighter aimed at using light weapons. Such flavor doesn't fit the flavor of the class and is a poor mechanical choice which is determined by the flavor of smaller weapons. That flavor can't be magically side-stepped to give those light weapons the same damage as longswords.

You could certainly make some kind of fighting style for light weapons (there are many custom fighter fighting styles out there), but it doesn't fit the flavor of the class imo.

Ugganaut
2018-01-07, 06:44 PM
You don't think a dex TWF fits the Fighter class?
Edit: I've never suggested increase the damage dice of small weapons. Not sure where that is coming from. I'm saying a Fighter getting off-hand stat damage from a stance makes more sense than giving rogues access to that skill level.

I guess we differ once again :smallsmile:

I'll revert it for our game, doesn't seem fair he just gained two stances and its useless.

Thanks again for indulging the discussion :smallsmile:

Morty
2018-01-07, 06:52 PM
This situation is exactly the same for a Fighter TWFing with daggers. I'm not going to design for a Fighter/Paladin/Barbarian wielding daggers with the goal of those daggers doing as much damage as longswords. Nor should I design for a Fighter aimed at using light weapons. Such flavor doesn't fit the flavor of the class and is a poor mechanical choice which is determined by the flavor of smaller weapons. That flavor can't be magically side-stepped to give those light weapons the same damage as longswords.

You could certainly make some kind of fighting style for light weapons (there are many custom fighter fighting styles out there), but it doesn't fit the flavor of the class imo.

So what class does such a fighting style fit? There's rogue, but it comes with a lot of baggage and a very specific way of fighting.

Other than that, you've clearly put an enormous amount of work and thought into this, and I respect that. Still, I find it somewhat disappointing that magic-using classes have much more material devoted to them, just like in regular D&D, and that non-magical ones still scale in a pretty limited way. They get new class features but their ability pools tend to stay the same, unless I'm missing something. And they only get access to general talents?

Kryx
2018-01-07, 07:06 PM
You don't think a dex TWF fits the Fighter class?
I have never said that. A rapier is a d8 finesse weapon. A long scimitar using d8 and finesse (with slashing) fits perfectly fine within 5e.


I'll revert it for our game, doesn't seem fair he just gained two stances and its useless.
Your game is only using about 10% of my rules. It's not such a good test case to be fair.

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



So what class does such a fighting style fit? There's rogue, but it comes with a lot of baggage and a very specific way of fighting.
Is the same not true for dual wielding daggers? How about dual wielding shurikens (darts)?

In both cases you're basically restricted to Monk or Rogue if you want to play mostly optimally. D&D is a rigid game. While I strive to make it less rigid there are certain choices that are plainly suboptimal. My goal is to only buff them when it makes flavor sense.

Though perhaps there is a fighting style out there that can make light weapons a viable option.


Other than that, you've clearly put an enormous amount of work and thought into this, and I respect that.
Thanks! It's a continuing project. I've receive feedback from a few dedicated people both on my old thread, this thread, and on my issue tracker. It's great to have more pairs of eyes join in and provide feedback!


Still, I find it somewhat disappointing that magic-using classes have much more material devoted to them, just like in regular D&D, and that non-magical ones still scale in a pretty limited way. They get new class features but their ability pools tend to stay the same, unless I'm missing something. And they only get access to general talents?
Different people want different things from roleplaying games. Some people want complex characters so casters exist for them while others want simple characters that are easier to manage so martials exist for them. Generally that's how D&D has always been. 3.X made some strives to adjust this later in its printing with Tome of Battle and 4e changed this drastically, but those two options (simple and complex) must always be present for players.

I believe I have provided a fair amount of options (and complexity) to the fighter via maneuvers. While martials will never be able to cast spells and have all the versatility that those bring I believe the caster martial divide in 5e is the smaller it has ever been and my rules significantly shrink that divide by having casters recharge on a short rest instead of long. Every class has a role to play and I believe martials are a vital part of every group in 5e.

Having said that if you have something specific in mind please do share.

Ugganaut
2018-01-07, 07:18 PM
Your right. I eat all my words :smallsmile:
The two mechanics are +stat to offhand damage, and dual one-handed weapons. One of them is to be locked to a Fighting style, the other available to all. It makes more sense that a dual dagger wielding rogue gets off-hand damage, than to allow them to dual wield rapiers(which a fighter can, but visually it looks silly to me).

It's the Light Weapon fighting stance that is missing, you're right. Maybe just +1 to damage when hitting with light weapons. Fills the gap between d6 and d8 weapons. Although it should probably not be related to damage, should have some other benefit for using lighter, faster weapons.

Any suggestions on how to fix Dueling? It really is horrid. I thought maybe +1 AC, they aren't using a shield or two-handed weapon, so are less weighed down so to speak, and can more easily dodge. I feel like a Defensive Duelist style thing would fit as part of this stance/style.

Kryx
2018-01-07, 07:34 PM
It's the Light Weapon fighting stance that is missing, you're right. Maybe just +1 to damage when hitting with light weapons. Fills the gap between d6 and d8 weapons. Although it should probably not be related to damage, should have some other benefit for using lighter, faster weapons.
Ah, ha! There is the suggestion that light weapons should do as much damage! :D

+1 damage is mechanically comparable, but I would only use it as a temporary option until I could come up with something more fitting to the flavor of light weapons as +1 damage is lazy design.


Any suggestions on how to fix Dueling? It really is horrid. I thought maybe +1 AC, they aren't using a shield or two-handed weapon, so are less weighed down so to speak, and can more easily dodge. I feel like a Defensive Duelist style thing would fit as part of this stance/style.
By my RAW calculations (https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1d-9xDdath8kX_v7Rpts9JFIJwIG3X0-dDUtfax14NT0/edit#gid=582756521) and Homebrew calculations (https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1sGvcz9vbq9yk4kRBEY6ZYGWhGO6-t7CWudznQcWPk74/edit#gid=582756521) fighting styles are worth about +10% DPR. Dueling accomplishes that.

Dueling isn't a bad choice, the lack of a feat or talent to follow it up with is the problem. GWF is only giving 7-8% more DPR, but that's because the DPR of the fighting style is so strong from GWM. Dueling needs a comparable feat.

Ugganaut
2018-01-07, 09:01 PM
Ah, ha! There is the suggestion that light weapons should do as much damage! :D
+1 damage is mechanically comparable, but I would only use it as a temporary option until I could come up with something more fitting to the flavor of light weapons as +1 damage is lazy design.
I wasn't originally suggesting light weapons increase in damage. I am now after I agreed with your assessment as to where stat/larger weapons belonged :P And yes, very lazy design, I don't like it, but its a stop gap measure.



By my RAW calculations (https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1d-9xDdath8kX_v7Rpts9JFIJwIG3X0-dDUtfax14NT0/edit#gid=582756521) and Homebrew calculations (https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1sGvcz9vbq9yk4kRBEY6ZYGWhGO6-t7CWudznQcWPk74/edit#gid=582756521) fighting styles are worth about +10% DPR. Dueling accomplishes that.

Dueling isn't a bad choice, the lack of a feat or talent to follow it up with is the problem. GWF is only giving 7-8% more DPR, but that's because the DPR of the fighting style is so strong from GWM. Dueling needs a comparable feat.

Ah ok, it just seemed really weak compared to an extra attack each round(TWF), even without the stat damage, but mainly at lower levels, and with crits. I'd imagine TWF is better earlier, Dueling getting better the more attacks you get in higher levels. I'll trust your math :smallsmile: So it just needs a feat/talent of some sort. In that case, I'd suggest something defensive in nature. I'm assuming Duelist is similar to a Fencing style, but more versatile for various weapons.

Been talking with my DM about it, and his comments were:
One of the common TWF setups, is one-handed/light, eg. Rapier/Dirk, Longsword/Dagger etc. But your TWF general rule is
"Two-Weapon Fighting: Once on your turn, when you take the Attack action and attack with a light weapon that youíre holding in one hand, you can attack with a different light weapon that youíre holding in the other hand. You donít add your ability modifier to the damage of the weapon that youíre holding in the other hand, unless that modifier is negative."
So this setup requires you are in the TWF stance to draw them at the same time.

Would changing this general rule, to one-handed weapon and light weapon change things to much? And also changing the Interact with Object entry to reflect that change(draw one-handed and light weapon).
The TWF stance still has value, allowing to use and draw two one-handed weapons. The feat would still be required for off-hand stat and +1 AC.

Kryx
2018-01-08, 03:47 AM
Ah ok, it just seemed really weak compared to an extra attack each round(TWF), even without the stat damage, but mainly at lower levels, and with crits. I'd imagine TWF is better earlier, Dueling getting better the more attacks you get in higher levels. I'll trust your math :smallsmile: So it just needs a feat/talent of some sort. In that case, I'd suggest something defensive in nature. I'm assuming Duelist is similar to a Fencing style, but more versatile for various weapons.
TWF fighting style either offers ability score (RAW) or bigger weapons which are effectively +1 average damage. I'm comparing the fighting styles in isolation, not the whole package. Based on that comparison the fighting styles are balanced fine.

The issue, when comparing the whole package, is the lack of a feat/talent for duelists. It needs more damage and more defense.


One of the common TWF setups, is one-handed/light, eg. Rapier/Dirk, Longsword/Dagger etc. But your TWF general rule is
"Two-Weapon Fighting: Once on your turn, when you take the Attack action and attack with a light weapon that youíre holding in one hand, you can attack with a different light weapon that youíre holding in the other hand. You donít add your ability modifier to the damage of the weapon that youíre holding in the other hand, unless that modifier is negative."
So this setup requires you are in the TWF stance to draw them at the same time.

Would changing this general rule, to one-handed weapon and light weapon change things to much? And also changing the Interact with Object entry to reflect that change(draw one-handed and light weapon).
There is no way to make this work, mechanically. One handed weapons and one light weapon could be a longsword + a shortsword which effectively just gives more damage.

Giving a one handed weapon and a light weapon by default seems innocuous, but the offhand weapon is used 1/turn while the main hand is used twice per turn starting at 5th level and is likely used for opportunity attacks. It would not be comparable to two light weapons.

Ugganaut
2018-01-08, 08:05 AM
There is no way to make this work, mechanically. One handed weapons and one light weapon could be a longsword + a shortsword which effectively just gives more damage.
* Draw/Sheathe two light weapons, or a one-handed weapon and a simple light weapon.
To wordy or specific? Or just unnecessary in your opinion?

Kryx
2018-01-08, 08:32 AM
* Draw/Sheathe two light weapons, or a one-handed weapon and a simple light weapon.
To wordy or specific? Or just unnecessary in your opinion?
Oh, you're talking about drawing weapons. Drawing wouldn't have any value unless you could attack with both, which you can't.

Ugganaut
2018-01-08, 08:42 AM
Oh, you're talking about drawing weapons. Drawing wouldn't have any value unless you could attack with both, which you can't.
And too much to add it also to the TWF general rule?

Kryx
2018-01-08, 08:43 AM
And too much to add it also to the TWF general rule?
See above:

There is no way to make this work, mechanically. One handed weapons and one light weapon could be a longsword + a shortsword which effectively just gives more damage.

Giving a one handed weapon and a light weapon by default seems innocuous, but the offhand weapon is used 1/turn while the main hand is used twice per turn starting at 5th level and is likely used for opportunity attacks. It would not be comparable to two light weapons.

Ugganaut
2018-01-08, 09:06 AM
What about something like this(obviously the crit range not worked out properly, just trying a concept):

Dagger Specialist [Talent]
* You can draw a dagger(or could be broader like light, finesse, thrown weapon) a number of times per round equal to your Dexterity modifier, without it counting toward your Interact with Object free action each turn, as long as you have a free hand to draw it.
* When you roll a natural 17-20 on an attack roll with a dagger and hit, you do an extra dice of weapon damage with that dagger.
* When using Two-Weapon Fighting, and attacking with a dagger in your off-hand, you can add your ability modifier to the weapon damage roll.

A lvl 20 fighter for example, could draw and throw as many daggers as he has attacks assuming Dex is high enough, and benefits from the second point on each.
In melee, he'd basically have the Dual Wielder feat plus one chance to trigger the second point. But no +1 AC that the DW talent gives.

Kryx
2018-01-08, 09:17 AM
You can draw a dagger(or could be broader like light, finesse, thrown weapon) a number of times per round equal to your Dexterity modifier, without it counting toward your Interact with Object free action each turn, as long as you have a free hand to draw it.
This is a feat tax for something that should work this way by RAW. If my rules don't explicitly allow it somewhere I allow characters to draw as many weapons as attacks for thrown weapons. It shouldn't require a feat to do so.


When using Two-Weapon Fighting, and attacking with a dagger in your off-hand, you can add your ability modifier to the weapon damage roll.
For 2 light weapons this is already covered via Dual Wielder. Otherwise this line wouldn't work as TWF does not allow an offhand light weapon with a main hand one handed weapon. I wouldn't as I've written above.


This is getting quite far beyond my homebrew though. I suggest opening a different thread for fixes to other things. Then you can receive proper feedback.

Morty
2018-01-08, 12:17 PM
Is the same not true for dual wielding daggers? How about dual wielding shurikens (darts)?

In both cases you're basically restricted to Monk or Rogue if you want to play mostly optimally. D&D is a rigid game. While I strive to make it less rigid there are certain choices that are plainly suboptimal. My goal is to only buff them when it makes flavor sense.

Though perhaps there is a fighting style out there that can make light weapons a viable option.

Fair point on D&D being rigid, I suppose. Its weapon and non-magical combat systems also leave a lot to be desired. Still, more fighting styles can't hurt, if mechanical niches can be found for them.


Different people want different things from roleplaying games. Some people want complex characters so casters exist for them while others want simple characters that are easier to manage so martials exist for them. Generally that's how D&D has always been. 3.X made some strives to adjust this later in its printing with Tome of Battle and 4e changed this drastically, but those two options (simple and complex) must always be present for players.

I believe I have provided a fair amount of options (and complexity) to the fighter via maneuvers. While martials will never be able to cast spells and have all the versatility that those bring I believe the caster martial divide in 5e is the smaller it has ever been and my rules significantly shrink that divide by having casters recharge on a short rest instead of long. Every class has a role to play and I believe martials are a vital part of every group in 5e.

Having said that if you have something specific in mind please do share.

That is true, but consider this - the spectrum of simplicity to complexity pretty much runs along the non-magical/magical line. The simple options are non-magical, complexity is magical. Thus someone who wants to play a complex, tactically engaging character without magic, they're kind of up the creek without a paddle. Likewise with someone who wants to play a simple magician, though this is easier. Not sure if it's easier or harder in your houserules.

You've done a lot of work on rewriting the magical and half-magical classes to be more consistent, and I believe non-magical ones could use the same treatment. The fighter is too broad and undefined, the barbarian is laser-focused on getting angry and hitting things. The rogue is kind of stuck being the only non-magical skill expert while also bearing the "thief" baggage all the way from original D&D. Reworking them into more consistent classes that cover different archetypes for non-magical specialists could help with that, while providing both simple and complex options.

Of course, this would mean even more work for an already extensive project, so this is less a suggestion and more an opinion, really.

Kryx
2018-01-08, 12:22 PM
I believe non-magical ones could use the same treatment. The fighter is too broad and undefined, the barbarian is laser-focused on getting angry and hitting things. The rogue is kind of stuck being the only non-magical skill expert while also bearing the "thief" baggage all the way from original D&D. Reworking them into more consistent classes that cover different archetypes for non-magical specialists could help with that, while providing both simple and complex options.
I'm overall pretty happy with the state of martials. A Barbarian especially is fantasticly effective.

A martial rework sounds like a project that you have a strong opinion on. I'd be curious what you could come up with and would possibly even consider such a rework of martial characters.

Ugganaut
2018-01-08, 04:03 PM
This is a feat tax for something that should work this way by RAW. If my rules don't explicitly allow it somewhere I allow characters to draw as many weapons as attacks for thrown weapons. It shouldn't require a feat to do so.
Agreed.



For 2 light weapons this is already covered via Dual Wielder. Otherwise this line wouldn't work as TWF does not allow an offhand light weapon with a main hand one handed weapon. I wouldn't as I've written above.
Was trying to suggest a "fix" for the Longsword/Dagger setup, with the addition of "or one-handed weapon and simple light weapon" added to the TWF general rule. The point of it was not to stack with DW feat, but still allow the Longsword/Dagger setup for TWF, but also benefit a dagger throwing character.



This is getting quite far beyond my homebrew though. I suggest opening a different thread for fixes to other things. Then you can receive proper feedback.
I was suggesting a rough idea for your homebrew. You don't see the Longsword/Dagger setup as an issue to fix, so I'll drop it.

Kryx
2018-01-08, 04:06 PM
You don't see the Longsword/Dagger setup as an issue to fix
Fixing it makes it strictly superior to two light weapon TWF is the issue.

Ugganaut
2018-01-08, 04:17 PM
The fighter is too broad and undefined
We played using his Fighter for the first time on the weekend. An F8, and B5/F3. The only issue was the archetypes didn't suit our characters, so had to homebrew a Scout and Skirmisher/Guerrilla. But as a system, I found it a lot more defined. The F8 Skirmisher had 4 Combat Maneuvers(1 per round limit), and his level 3 archetype feature. The CM's made for interesting tactical choices each round, and the archetype feature made his feel very different to the other archetypes. You would not have mistaken him for a Cavalier. He had Evasive Footwork, Lunging Strike, Riposte and Crippling Strike(he had Goading in normal 5e rules, but that is now locked to the tank types - Cavalier and Samurai). He was effectively drawing the attention off our cleric with Crippling Strike, and moving around the battlefield with Evasive Footwork etc. Each round it really mattered which he chose. The higher level you get, the larger your suite of CM's, and the more tactical it becomes. Also the archetypes continue to steer you away from the flavor of other fighter archetypes. Might not be as complex as some would like, but as our F8 hadn't even read the system before the game, it was easy enough to pick up, and more defined and flavorful that standard 5e Fighters. That's been my take so far.
Only reason I see its not broad, is the limited amount and style of archetypes. But the system has room for that.

Kryx
2018-01-09, 04:57 AM
January 9th, 2018 (https://bitbucket.org/mlenser/5ehomebrew/wiki/Changelog#markdown-header-january-9th-2018)
Naturalist

Beastmaster removed in favor of the animal companion spell.

Occultist

Summoner removed in favor of the summon eidolon spell.

Psionicist

arcane constructís structure updated a bit (progression of ability scores, enhancements). Eidolon and Animal Companion align with the Arcane Construct.

Morty
2018-01-09, 07:43 PM
I'm overall pretty happy with the state of martials. A Barbarian especially is fantasticly effective.

A martial rework sounds like a project that you have a strong opinion on. I'd be curious what you could come up with and would possibly even consider such a rework of martial characters.

If you're curious... here's what I'd do, while keeping mostly to the paradigms it seems you've adopted:


Consider redoing the weapons list. Right now, it's mostly an illusion of choice. Actual variety mostly comes from combat style features. It needs to stop straddling the fence and either provide actual variety or boil it down to broad categories (light, one-handed, two-handed, finesse, reach). The latter is a much more realistic proposition, so I'd probably go with that. This is mostly a cosmetic issue, but it helps players describe their weapons however they want without having to worry about suboptimal weapon choices. Making two-handed finesse options would be problematic, as dexterity is already more useful than strength in many ways. Not sure about Versatile. Right now it's a bit of a decoration. It could benefit from its own weapon style and talents, perhaps. But a versatile finesse weapon would still give dexterity builds an option they didn't have before.

Classes. In your rework, rangers and paladins have been folded into more overtly magical classes, so what remains is fighter, rogue and barbarian. Barbarian is very focused on rage. Rogue is in a very precarious position because it's the "skill specialist" class while also having the thief baggage from all the way back to the original D&D and a focus on single-target damage. So it's technically a grab-bag for all "tricky" types, but also not. Fighter, meanwhile, is a generic option for all warriors who don't fall into the other two and don't use too much magic.

What I'd do is rework them to suit archetypes and battlefield roles. Let fighter be the "defender" class, focused on standing in the front, being durable and disrupting. Barbarian can be replaced by an aggressive and mobile class that includes, but isn't limited to, the raging berserker. Then add a "warlord" type, which focuses on the strategic and battlefield-controlling aspects of the fighter archetype. Then the "trickster" class, which includes the thief/rogue, but also other skill specialists who need a bit of setup in combat. Whether it's sneak attack or something else.

Each of those would include at least one archetype that's simple and relies on a few strong abilities. Each archetype would also include its own spin on what the class is about, like the "barbarian" subclass' rage. The more complex ones would need a resource system for scaling maneuvers. I think superiority dice have potential here, as does a model where you get a passive benefit for unspent dice. Which could be a way to give simple options to those that want them.


It's very ambitious, and I don't know if it'd be possible in practice... so take it for what you will. It's not so much about power as it is about variety and engagement.

Ugganaut
2018-01-10, 07:28 AM
Light Off-Hand Fighting [Stance]
When fighting with a one-handed weapon and a simple light weapon in your off-hand, you gain a +1 to attack rolls with your off-hand weapon.

Finesse Defence [Stance]
When not wearing Bulky armor, and fighting with a finesse weapon and no weapon or shield in your other hand, or two finesse weapons, you gain +1 AC.

Would these work in your system, or does it mess with balance somehow?

Kryx
2018-01-10, 11:19 AM
Light Off-Hand Fighting [Stance]
When fighting with a one-handed weapon and a simple light weapon in your off-hand, you gain a +1 to attack rolls with your off-hand weapon.
TWF does not allow attacking with a one handed weapon and an "off hand" weapon. You'd have to patch the TWF base rules. At that point, assuming my rules for twf, we'd compare 1d6+3+1d6+3 vs 1d8+3+1d4

the 1d4 would have a higher chance to hit and the 1d8 does more damage on "Extra attack" and opportunity attacks. I'd have to calculate how much, but I'd wager that this option would be much better than 2x light weapons. For example a rogue would deal more damage as +1 to hit is quite important for sneak attack.

I wouldn't use it for these reasons. If we were talking about 2x daggers or plain dagger then there may be room for calculations, but not with that much.


Finesse Defence [Stance]
When not wearing Bulky armor, and fighting with a finesse weapon and no weapon or shield in your other hand, or two finesse weapons, you gain +1 AC.
This seems like an attempt to fix dueling, but as above dueling doesn't actually need fixing - it's quite good and gives a significantly higher boost in damage than other fighting styles. The issue is that dueling needs a talent/feat. That talent/feat should likely contain +1 AC like Dual Wielder does, but it'd need more.

This stance would be mechanically worse than dueling. It's even worse than Defense.

Ugganaut
2018-01-10, 03:30 PM
I wouldn't use it for these reasons. If we were talking about 2x daggers or plain dagger then there may be room for calculations, but not with that much.
I forgot to add "you can use" into the stance. Wasn't attempting to change the general rule, just provide another stance for possible dual wielding setups. But I see your points, doesn't sound like it would work.



This seems like an attempt to fix dueling, but as above dueling doesn't actually need fixing - it's quite good and gives a significantly higher boost in damage than other fighting styles. The issue is that dueling needs a talent/feat. That talent/feat should likely contain +1 AC like Dual Wielder does, but it'd need more.

This stance would be mechanically worse than dueling. It's even worse than Defense.
Actually it was an attempt to pair with Dueling(both to switch, and at F9 to combine with), and provide a Musketeer type, who may not wear armor, to have a second stance to use that provides +1 AC. Defense stance only works with armor. Also, it provides a benefit to using two lighter weapons, that can stack with Defense(for non-bulky armor). So an advantage of using two shortswords, is you can use both this and Defense. Non-Bulky armors max out at 17, so bringing it up to 18 didn't seem to much, especially with the reduced damage of TWF with d6 weapons instead of d8. DW feat stacks too, so this wouldn't bring it above a Plate+Shield+Defense character.
You could use TWF and Finesse Fighting to wield two rapiers, but then you can't have both those and Defense at level 9, so they'll never stack to give both two d8 weapons and more than +1 AC.

Edit: And I agree, Dueling does need a feat, I wont' try address that in Stances. Trying to give broader support for other possible Fighter setups. For a Musketeer type with no armor, would still require an archetype with Unarmored Defense. But for a level 9 fighter, I think there needs to be more support for the various setups. Dex Fighter's don't seem to be supported yet, and I think they are a valid fighter type - like a Musketeer, who is a dex combatant, without actually being a rogue.

Kane0
2018-01-10, 05:33 PM
Hey Kryx, out of curiosity have you considered changing up the 6 classic attributes?

Ugganaut
2018-01-11, 07:51 AM
After talking with my DM, he suggested the following changes, thought I'd see if you saw any flaws.

Defense [Stance]
You gain a +1 bonus to AC.
Notes: This was for a possible Musketeer type unarmored dex fighter in the future. No reason a fighter in a defensive stance wouldn't be better off if unarmored.

Two-Weapon Fighting [Stance]
You can use two-weapon fighting even when the one-handed melee weapons you are wielding arenít light. Any light melee weapon you hit with, does +1 damage, and any simple light weapon you hit with does +2 damage while two-weapon fighting. Additionally you can draw or stow two one-handed weapons when you would normally be able to draw or stow only one.
Notes: Allows more versatile setups with TWF.

Edit: But this is what you had issue before I now realize, with increasing smaller weapons damage. It is decreasing the damage die while increasing minimum damage, so its more a trade off.

Kryx
2018-01-11, 12:52 PM
Hey Kryx, out of curiosity have you considered changing up the 6 classic attributes?
I've considered it many times. I also heavily considered 5e Without Ability Scores-- skills, Skills, Skills (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?503455-5e-Without-Ability-Scores-skills-Skills-Skills). It was one sacred cow that I couldn't get my players to go for.

I think it would likely improve the game if the GM had players on board with the idea.

___


Defense [Stance]
You gain a +1 bonus to AC.
Notes: This was for a possible Musketeer type unarmored dex fighter in the future. No reason a fighter in a defensive stance wouldn't be better off if unarmored.
Removing armor requirements will be a fine change. The reason the developers put it there was likely to prevent a monk or wild shape druid multiclassing to 1 fighter for +1 AC, but as long as those kind of cases don't occur it should be fine.


Edit: But this is what you had issue before I now realize, with increasing smaller weapons damage. It is decreasing the damage die while increasing minimum damage, so its more a trade off.
A dagger now does 4.5 average damage which is the same as a longsword. That doesn't work for me. :S

Ugganaut
2018-01-11, 03:30 PM
Removing armor requirements will be a fine change. The reason the developers put it there was likely to prevent a monk or wild shape druid multiclassing to 1 fighter for +1 AC, but as long as those kind of cases don't occur it should be fine.
True, wasn't thinking multi-class for once :smallsmile: Monks current max is AC20, same as Plate+Shield without stance. Would it break things if the Monk mc'd Fighter 1 to get that bonus?



A dagger now does 4.5 average damage which is the same as a longsword. That doesn't work for me. :S
I think my DM was more worried about having to choose two longswords over longsword and dagger to be optimal in TWF stance, and L+D would be a much more common setup. This way there is a trade off, but you can choose thematically instead of mechanically with no real penalty to damage. It's not like the dagger can't ever do that damage in the hands of someone else, like a Dueling stance or even a rogue, so its feasible. For a fighter, the longsword will still have a higher maximum each hit, and it will shine more with crits/OA's, so dual wielding daggers with TWF stance is not optimal. This version of TWF benefit is still getting that d8 weapon in your primary hand.
I know you disagree though. We might have to houserule that one.

Kryx
2018-01-12, 09:28 AM
Would it break things if the Monk mc'd Fighter 1 to get that bonus?
It's probably fine, but I'm just guessing that is why the developers did it as they did.

Sounds like you found a solution for your group for TWF.

Kryx
2018-01-13, 02:16 PM
January 13th, 2018 (https://bitbucket.org/mlenser/5ehomebrew/wiki/Changelog#markdown-header-january-13th-2018)
Spells

Expanded the Animal Companion form options from 10 to 32 and reformatted it. It should be significantly more clear. The vast majority are very simple ports from the Monster Manual and adhere to the animal quite well I believe.

Naturalist

Shifter reworked using the Animal Companion forms The Shifter taking those attacks and traits should provide a "true beast" feel.

Giegue
2018-01-16, 04:56 PM
This keeps getting more and more awesome. That being said, I still am kinda disapointed about the lack of undead buffs for the death acolyte. I mean, I understand the choice, but at the same time I can't help but feel making the Oathbreaker's Aura of hate an Acolyte talent would be fitting and not all that OP, at least compared to the Undead Thralls buff that wizards get in base 5e. That being said, it would need some tweeking. I'd personally do it like this:

Aura of Desecration
Prerequisites: 5th level, Acolyte or Occultist
Benefits: All friendly fiends and undead within 10ft of you add your Wisdom or Charisma modifier to their weapon damage rolls. At 18th level, the range of this aura increases to 30ft.

Again, this dosen't seem too game breaking, and allows for the "lord of undead/minionmancer" playstyle to still be a thing. Again, I can understand not wanting to include this as a talent, but if you don't mind I'd likely allow this talent for an acolyte or occultist in any games I run using your rules as a houserule, if you decide against including something like this yourself.

Other than that, this looks totally awesome, and I vastly prefer it to vanilla 5e. Great work!

Kryx
2018-01-16, 05:06 PM
It's a Death domain, not an Undeath domain. An Undeath domain could surely exist and it'd share some things with Death domain, but it'd be it's own unique creation. Either way "undead buffs" is probably not the road I'd approach.

Mages have no undead buffing in my games either. It's generally something I chose to remove as I believe it's not such a great design. +3-5 damage on all attacks for all minions is definitely not weak. Minionmancy is already a great option in 5e (See Creature Summons (https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1N4QC6EmXE0avgk8jK1aubJcaFoZDYw8b_DuPHh8aBTc/edit#gid=361009768)). I'll have to add undead summons to that list and calculate where they currently are, but I'd rather see stronger undead like an Ogre Zombie or something more structured than buffs like the RAW Wizard has as that can get a bit out of hand.


this looks totally awesome, and I vastly prefer it to vanilla 5e. Great work!
Thanks for the kind words! It's super nice to read these messages and encourages me to continue. Feel free to provide further critical feedback. It helps me improve my rules by examining things from a new perspective and ultimately makes my rules better.

Giegue
2018-01-16, 05:12 PM
Well, if you would allow, could I hombrew my own undeath domain for use with this for the needs of my table? A friend and I have a rough undeath domain for our own project and I think it could be adapted to fit your vision. It's desgin is pretty unique...instead of giving all your undead flat bonuses, it actually reduces the number of undead you can control, but makes the few undead you can control a *lot* stronger as a result. Your less about flat buffs to a massive hoard and more about having a few really strong undead. If you like, I can post up a version adapted for your houserules here for you to look at?

Kryx
2018-01-16, 05:14 PM
Well, if you would allow, could I hombrew my own undeath domain for use with this for the needs of my table? A friend and I have a rough undeath domain for our own project and I think it could be adapted to fit your vision. It's desgin is pretty unique...instead of giving all your undead flat bonuses, it actually reduces the number of undead you can control, but makes the few undead you can control a *lot* stronger as a result. Your less about flat buffs to a massive hoard and more about having a few really strong undead. If you like, I can post up a version adapted for your houserules here for you to look at?
I think that's an interesting idea. Probably best to take and use the existing monsters like Ogre Zombie where possible.

I'd be most concerned about balance. Any class feature that can super charge a spell and make the spell more valuable for it's level is something to be rather concerned about. It all depends how it is implemented.

Giegue
2018-01-16, 05:56 PM
Ok, cool. This is a rough translation of our domain to your system. If you feel it goes too much against the ethos of what your trying to do, feel free to just use it as inspiration for your own undeath domain, or do nothing with it all togther. Either way, if I ever run a game using your system, I likely will make this avalible regardless, at least until you make your own undeath domain, because I have a very different opinion on pets than you it seems. Anywah, here is a rough translation of our domain to your rules.

The gods of undeath are often portrayed as evil deities who desire nothing but to corrupt and enslave the living. While this is true for dark gods like Vecna, Urgathoa, Nerull, and Myrkul there are far less malevolent gods like Wee Jas and Osiris who consider the undead as useful tools for study or some other purpose. Followers of this domain learn spells to create undead, as well as alter their magic to raise fewer, but far more powerful undead that surpasses any an arcane caster can animate.

Domain Spells

1st: Ray of Sickness, False Life
3rd: Blindness/Deafness, Ray of Enfeeblement
5th: Animate Dead, Vampiric Touch
7th: Blight, Shadow of Moil
9th: Dance Macabre, Negative Energy Flood

Tomb-Tainted Soul

Starting at 3rd level, you become suffused with necrotic energies, enuring you to the powers of the undead and warping your curative magics to be able to heal them. You gain resistance to necrotic damage and have advantage on saving throws against the special abilities and attacks of undead creatures. Additionally, you can treat undead as living creatures instead of undead for the effects of spells you cast that would heal damage or remove conditions. (such as Cure Wounds and Lesser Restoration.)

Channel Divinity

Also at 3rd level, you gain the following channel divinity options:

Bone Skin. As an action, you channel your deity's foul power, temporarily entering into a twilight state between life and undeath. You gain resistance to bludgeoning, piercing and slashing damage from non-magical sources for 1 minute.

Command the Dead. As an action, you target one undead you can see within 30ft and invoke your divine authority over it. It must make a Charisma saving throw. On a failed save, it must obey your commands for the next 24 hours, or until you use this Channel Divinity again. Undead who's CR are equal to or greater than your level are immune to this Channel Divinity.

Rise from the Grave If a living ally within 30ft of you would drop to 0 or less points, you can use your Channel Divinity as a reaction to temporarily grant it the vitality of a zombie. Until the end of their turn, that ally has the Undead Fortitude trait. (See the zombie stablock for details) Additionally, if they succeed on the Constitution saving throw they make with their Undead Fortitude trait and return to 1 hp, they immediately gain an amount of temporary hit points equal to 2d8 + your Wisdom or Charisma modifier that last until the end of their next turn. At 5th level this increases to 3d8 + your Wisdom or Charisma modifier, and at levels 11 and 17 increases again by 1d8, to a maximum of 5d8 + your Wisdom or Charisma modifier at 17th level.

Empower Undead

Through faith and devotion to your deity, you have unlocked the secret to maximizing the potential of the few undead, rather than swarm with the many. Starting at 6th level, whenever you cast a spell that would require you to reassert control over undead it creates (such as Animate Dead), you may choose to empower one already existing undead under your control that spell could create instead of creating new undead. Doing this reduces the number of undead you can reassert control of after each long rest with each spell you cast that creates undead by 3 (to a minimum of 1, and a maximum of 3 less.) and instantly causes any undead over this limit you currently control to crumble to dust (leaving them unable to be reanimated again). Empowering an undead in this way grants it the following additional benefits:

An empowered undead increases its hit point maximum by twice your Acolyte level
The empowered undead gains a bonus to its AC equal to half of your proficiency bonus (minimum 1, rounded down)
An empowered undead gains a bonus to attack and damage rolls equal to your Wisdom or Charisma modifier (minimum 1)
An empowered undead gains Turn Resistance if it did not have it already
Empowering an undead automatically reasserts control over it, however you must re-empower your controlled undead every 24 hours or the effect ends. You may only empower 2 undead at a time per casting.

Corrupted Form

Starting at 14th level, your form twists to become more like that of an undead creature. You canít be blinded, deafened, frightened, or poisoned, and if an attack is a critical hit against you, it doesnít deal its extra damage to you.

Scion of Undeath

Your devotion to the darker powers of the world have bequeathed you with the knowledge to create a Scion of Undeath, a chosen undead granted divine favor and magic. Starting at 18th level, when you cast a spell that would create undead under your control (such as Create Undead), you may choose perform increase its casting time to 8 hours ritual to imbue an undead creature with you divine magic instead of create new undead. The imbued creature gains the following benefits:

The creature gains the effects of your Empowered Undead feature and has its own initiative rolls.
The creatureís Wisdom score is increased to 16, or it increases its Wisdom score by 2, to a maximum of 20 (whichever is higher).
The creatureís CR is now treated as being 3 higher for the purpose of an Acolyte's Destroy the Faithless talent.
The creature learns a number of spells of your choice from the Acolyte spell list equal to your Wisdom or Charisma modifier of 5th level or lower, as well as 2 cantrips of your choice from the Acolyte spell list. The creature has 20 mana with which to cast these spells, and a mana limit of 7. It regains all expended mana whenever you finish a short or long rest, and uses its own Wisdom as its Spellcasting ability.
The creature gains the Control Undead and Grim Harvest Channel Divinity options (as-per the Death Domain), and may Channel Divinity once-per short or long rest. It uses its own Wisdom score to set the save DCs for these Channel Divinity options.
You do not need to re-empower or reassert control over your Scion, however you may only have one controlled at any given time, and if you attempt to create a new Scion, your former leaves your service. You may dismiss control over your Scion at any time with an action, in which it becomes indifferent to you and departs.

Again, our take on an undeath domain seems VASTLY different from what you want, but I thought I'd post our take none the less just to possibly spur ideeas. Note that our vannella 5e undeath domain (upon which this is based) is also VERY early/beta, so some features may be way too strong. Again, this is just to get ideas flowing and nothing else.

Kryx
2018-01-17, 01:17 PM
Hmm, these kind of things likely belong on their own thread, but let's give it a try and see how it goes.

You have some great flavor, but some of the features are quite overpowered.

Let me start out this review by saying that 5e has severely limited the ability to creature a massive ball of minions that severely overwhelm the battlefield and make combats far less fun for everyone not controlling the massive amount of minions. I believe this creation attempts to revitalize that mass summoning aspect that existed in 3.X and has rightfully been removed from 5e because it is overpowered and unfun. This definitely has some good ideas in it, but the goal of mass summoning doesn't have a place in modern D&D.


Domain Spells
Shadow of Moil is not an undead flavored spell - it's just shadow. Death Ward is far more appropriate.


Tomb-Tainted Soul
You gain resistance to necrotic damage and have advantage on saving throws against the special abilities and attacks of undead creatures. Additionally, you can treat undead as living creatures instead of undead for the effects of spells you cast that would heal damage or remove conditions. (such as Cure Wounds and Lesser Restoration.)
Resist is ok.
The Undead avoidance is far better implemented via "Among the Dead" from the Undying Warlock. Check that out.
Cure wounds should be necromancy as they deal with life and death. Not sure it should apply to undead, but I can let it slide.
I've never ever heard of a necromancer curing his minions of a disease. They'd be far more likely to let the minion spread the disease or re-animate the undead after it dies from whatever condition. Lesser Restoration does not fit the flavor imo.


Bone Skin. As an action, you channel your deity's foul power, temporarily entering into a twilight state between life and undeath. You gain resistance to bludgeoning, piercing and slashing damage from non-magical sources for 1 minute.
This is the first of the really overpowered features. In my rules resistance to B/P/S from nonmagical weapons is available as a subclass feature at 14th level for acolyte and monk. A monk can also use it as a reaction until the next turn for 2 ki.
The current version you have is vastly superior to Stoneskin for nearly all scenarios. Stoneskin does the same thing, but is a 4th level spell, costs 100g, lasts 1 hour, and requires concentration. The slot cost, 100g, and concentration add up to make Stoneskin a rather mediocre 4th level spell, and this feature is better than it by far. I'd say this is equivalent to a 3rd level spell.

I'd strongly recommend adjusting this to either be a reaction and last 1 turn or to find another option because this is OP.


Command the Dead. As an action, you target one undead you can see within 30ft and invoke your divine authority over it. It must make a Charisma saving throw. On a failed save, it must obey your commands for the next 24 hours, or until you use this Channel Divinity again. Undead who's CR are equal to or greater than your level are immune to this Channel Divinity.
This feature exists in the Oathbreaker. You should use that name ("Control Undead", the same as I use) and the saving throw should not be Charisma, but Wisdom as it is there.


Rise from the Grave If a living ally within 30ft of you would drop to 0 or less points, you can use your Channel Divinity as a reaction to temporarily grant it the vitality of a zombie. Until the end of their turn, that ally has the Undead Fortitude trait. (See the zombie stablock for details) Additionally, if they succeed on the Constitution saving throw they make with their Undead Fortitude trait and return to 1 hp, they immediately gain an amount of temporary hit points equal to 2d8 + your Wisdom or Charisma modifier that last until the end of their next turn. At 5th level this increases to 3d8 + your Wisdom or Charisma modifier, and at levels 11 and 17 increases again by 1d8, to a maximum of 5d8 + your Wisdom or Charisma modifier at 17th level.
This is another overpowered feature. Undead Fortitude is a rather strong ability. It's almost as strong as the 4th level spell Death Ward. I'd place this easily as a 3rd level spell. Far too strong.


Empower Undead
Starting at 6th level, whenever you cast a spell that would require you to reassert control over undead it creates (such as Animate Dead), you may choose to empower one already existing undead under your control that spell could create instead of creating new undead. Doing this reduces the number of undead you can reassert control of after each long rest with each spell you cast that creates undead by 3 (to a minimum of 1, and a maximum of 3 less.) and instantly causes any undead over this limit you currently control to crumble to dust (leaving them unable to be reanimated again). Empowering an undead in this way grants it the following additional benefits:

An empowered undead increases its hit point maximum by twice your Acolyte level
The empowered undead gains a bonus to its AC equal to half of your proficiency bonus (minimum 1, rounded down)
An empowered undead gains a bonus to attack and damage rolls equal to your Wisdom or Charisma modifier (minimum 1)
An empowered undead gains Turn Resistance if it did not have it already
Empowering an undead automatically reasserts control over it, however you must re-empower your controlled undead every 24 hours or the effect ends. You may only empower 2 undead at a time per casting.
Firstly the mechanics of this are weird as Animate Dead can only create 1 undead at 3rd level, so reducing to a minimum of 1 at 3rd level is still 1, so just a stronger 3rd level animate dead (which isn't bad, but not like this). At 4th level Animate dead is again only creating 1 minion. Only at 5th level does it finally create 2, but this does not work as is.
Now for the OP part: Imagine a 9th level acolyte casting Danse Macabre. Each empowered minion now have +18 hp, +5 to hit and damage, and gains turn resistance.
Each Skeleton now has +5 to hit, +10 to damage (5 from Danse, 5 from this)

I don't have a full grasp on undead animating spells, but this is simply not going to result in balanced options. If you want stronger undead then I have an idea at the end of this post.


Corrupted Form
Starting at 14th level, your form twists to become more like that of an undead creature. You canít be blinded, deafened, frightened, or poisoned, and if an attack is a critical hit against you, it doesnít deal its extra damage to you.
Avoiding critical hits is not a feature of undead in 5e and I definitely wouldn't recommend porting older edition features to 5e unless there is a basis for them in 5e. Nearly all "immune to crit" features were removed in 5e.

My Undying Occultist has a great 14th level feature that would fit here.


Scion of Undeath
Starting at 18th level, when you cast a spell that would create undead under your control (such as Create Undead), you may choose perform increase its casting time to 8 hours ritual to imbue an undead creature with you divine magic instead of create new undead. The imbued creature gains the following benefits:

The creature gains the effects of your Empowered Undead feature and has its own initiative rolls.
The creatureís Wisdom score is increased to 16, or it increases its Wisdom score by 2, to a maximum of 20 (whichever is higher).
The creatureís CR is now treated as being 3 higher for the purpose of an Acolyte's Destroy the Faithless talent.
The creature learns a number of spells of your choice from the Acolyte spell list equal to your Wisdom or Charisma modifier of 5th level or lower, as well as 2 cantrips of your choice from the Acolyte spell list. The creature has 20 mana with which to cast these spells, and a mana limit of 7. It regains all expended mana whenever you finish a short or long rest, and uses its own Wisdom as its Spellcasting ability.
The creature gains the Control Undead and Grim Harvest Channel Divinity options (as-per the Death Domain), and may Channel Divinity once-per short or long rest. It uses its own Wisdom score to set the save DCs for these Channel Divinity options.
You do not need to re-empower or reassert control over your Scion, however you may only have one controlled at any given time, and if you attempt to create a new Scion, your former leaves your service. You may dismiss control over your Scion at any time with an action, in which it becomes indifferent to you and departs.
I'll assume this was meant for 20th level as that is when Acolytes get their last subclass feature.
This feature is waaaaaaaay too strong. Imagine combining it with the 14th level feature that I recommended above that allows the caster to not sleep. That'd be 2x uses of this feature a day - quite strong. This should be limited to once per long rest.
Own initiative is fine.
Wisdom score increasing to 16+ is quite strong combined with advantage to turning. CR +3 is basically similar to other creature creation spells so it should be ok.
Spells is insanely OP. 5th level or lower spells is just insanity. I allow a psionic spell to break action economy to cast 3rd level or lower spells, but it requires concentration and your first turn in combat and if you are CC'd then no more spells. This is far beyond the power level of that spell. Imagine those minions casting their own summoning spells - this is simply beyond OP.
Control Undead just multiplies the amount of minions. Allowing minions to use it is incredibly overpowered by itself.
Grim Harvest is probably ok.

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


Undead Creating spells

Ideally undead creating spells should follow the same CR guidelines that other spells do (4th level = 1x CR 2, 2x CR 1, 3x CR 1/2, 4x CR 1/4). I'd much rather see an Animate Dead remodeled to that structure (with example skeletons/Zombies at each CR) than this patchwork system.
It could easily be presented like Animate Objects is: a set amount of hp/+hit, and damage per amount of minions.

Kryx
2018-01-30, 03:14 PM
January 30th, 2018 (https://bitbucket.org/mlenser/5ehomebrew/wiki/Changelog#markdown-header-january-30th-2018)
Acolyte

War Domain's War Priest no longer requires a bonus action

Barbarian

Danger Sense moved from 2nd to 3rd level to align with other classes
Talents increased to progress to 9
Bloodrager added

Fighter

Talents increased to progress to 9

Minstrel

Bardic Performance now starts with Inspire and Cutting Words. The other 3 options are gained at level 10.
Jack of all Trades moved to a talent

Monk

Slow fall moved from 5th to 2nd level to align with other classes
Ki-Empowered Strikes moved from 6th to 5th level to align with other classes
Diamond soul moved from 14th to 13th level to align with other classes

Rogue

Danger Sense added at 3rd level
Talents increased to progress to 9

Spellcasting

9th level casters and 5th level casters have had their mana adjusted. A bit of up and down, but most will be slightly up. This more closely aligns with the raw effective spell points.

Spells

Spiritual Weapon brought back. Costs an action instead of a bonus action.

Marcloure
2018-01-31, 08:45 PM
Really great work Kryx. I read through the document in the past two days, and I must say this last version is indeed very inspiring. I really like how Talents are, they let a variety of builds and character concepts, theyĎre something almost out of D&D. Also, to create large classes and then make the original classes into specializations is a very neat idea. Well, now I certainly do prefer your houserules over 5e as it is.

I think I'll run my next game using your rules. I'm just wondering how can I make someone else to read through it. I think I can start by bookmarking it, to help reading and to give order to things.

I have one question though. How to get a critical hit on a 2d10 system? Rolling a 20? Isn't the chance there very minimal?

Kryx
2018-02-01, 07:23 AM
Really great work Kryx. I read through the document in the past two days, and I must say this last version is indeed very inspiring. I really like how Talents are, they let a variety of builds and character concepts, theyĎre something almost out of D&D. Also, to create large classes and then make the original classes into specializations is a very neat idea. Well, now I certainly do prefer your houserules over 5e as it is.
Nice, thanks for the feedback! I think I may move back toward 8 (or less) talents as 9 feels like a bit too much, but overall I'm quite pleased with the result of creating them for all classes. Talents could surely benefit from more ideas. Martials for example have just the options previously available as feats. Though martials are harder to flavor benefits for without increasing their combat prowess significantly.


I'm just wondering how can I make someone else to read through it. I think I can start by bookmarking it, to help reading and to give order to things.
I looked into an automation process for creating bookmarks on a PDF, but the process was not simple or very automated. I release updates to the rules too regularly to do manual bookmarking. :(


[/B]I have one question though. How to get a critical hit on a 2d10 system? Rolling a 20? Isn't the chance there very minimal?
18, 19, or 20 for a crit would be a 6% chance which is close enough to the 5% on a d20. That's what I use.

Marcloure
2018-02-08, 02:56 PM
Hey.

First, I have a quick question. I didn't find the Genasi among your races, do they exist in your homebrew? Well, I suppose your world doesn't have them, since it already have Oread and Undine (which both are basically Earth and Water Genasi). So I'm just checking if I didn't stomped over anything, and to find if you have any plans for Fire Humans and Air Humans.

Second, I'm not sure how I feel about the Android race. They gain a lot of tenacity; it's very hard to affect them with control magic and many other effects. Having Constructed Body and Cibernetic Mind makes the Android very resistant to nasty effects (like paralyze and stun and illusions and charm), which usually already have repeating saves. And then they can also self heal by something very close to what the fighter can.
Their features are tematically fitting, sure, and I'm aware they have disadvantage on all Insight checks (which is a fairly major skill). But comparing the Android with Forest and Rock Gnome, I think the Android is over the two.

Kryx
2018-02-08, 03:29 PM
Hey, thanks for checking out the rules.

Pathfinder has Ifrit (fire), Sylph (air), Oread (earth), and Undine (water). You can rename them genasi if it suits your setting. I had Sylph and Ifrit in an earlier version. I should probably look at bringing them back.


Androids have 4 features: Constructed Body, Cybernetic Mind, Repairing Nanites, and Darkvision. Darkvision is common and a decent boost, but lets look at the other three:

Constructed body: This is a strong ability, but such is the flavor of robots. Making them just as susceptible to poison and disease as a humanoid for example would make no sense.
Cybernetic mind: This is a strong ability, though it is present in the gnome as well as the gillmen. It's great, but it also comes with the drawback of insight so it's less valuable than those cases.
Repairing nanites: This feature is like having 1 extra hit dice. It's nice, but a small boost.

I think Android is a strong race, not sure about OP though. Perhaps I'll do a more complete analysis soon.

Marcloure
2018-02-08, 04:26 PM
Constructed body: This is a strong ability, but such is the flavor of robots. Making them just as susceptible to poison and disease as a humanoid for example would make no sense.


I think advantage against diseases, exhaustion and poisoned is totally fine. Also is the healing die and the advantage against magic (which would also include most charming effects).
But having advantage on saves against paralyzed and stunned, on top of all of that, seems a bit too much. I would drop just this part, but I'm not sure if then the race would be kind of too simple.

Kryx
2018-02-08, 04:31 PM
I had a similar thought process in my head. Perhaps stunned and payalyzed could be ditched, but they exist on the PF Android (http://www.d20pfsrd.com/races/other-races/more-races/advanced-races-11-20-rp/android-16-rp/) so I'm tempted to keep them. Perhaps that's silly though.

I need to do a proper analysis of races before making changes though. A system like "Detect Balance" could help here (though I think some of his numbers are quite off). I could use some help doing that if you'd be interested. :)

tyresias11
2018-02-12, 03:25 PM
Hey Kryx. I just wanted to thank you for this incredible work and I hope you will keep updating all the changes you do to the main document, as I introduced your houserules to some gaming groups here in Berlin and no one wants to go back to 5e original.

Since we only use your modified version, I have to say it's exceptionally useful that u keep updating all the little details, so I can correct or match what my players already have.

Thank you very much for your work.

PS: I am a huge fan of homebrewing and adding more and more subclasses to your existing ones. Is there any class or subclass in dmsguild.com that u have your eyes on? Something that would fit right in?

Kryx
2018-02-12, 03:31 PM
Hi Tyresias, great to hear! We almost moved to Berlin several times now, but it never quite worked out.

I will continue to work on this project. I'm a bit focused on my sheet for roll20 and with real life stuff like buying an apartment, but will touch up a few things soon.

I don't have any pending ideas - I exhausted all the current ones that bothered me (Druid not being forced into wild shape, better sorcerer, etc). Some areas could probably use a bit of touch up (races, martial talents), but it feels pretty solid overall. Feel free to contribute if you have ideas!

LurkerShep
2018-02-13, 03:28 AM
Was asked to move my questions here from PMs, so here we go:

1. Seeing the Talents system, how do these interact with Homebrew classes (obviously they would have to be converted to having your tables to include Talents, but just for the sake of brevity)?
1a.) How did you come up with Talents for classes? I see the general ones are basically Feats, but are the ones for prerequisite classes features sucked out and put into Talents or what?
1b.) Depending on the answer to 1a, would a homebrewer have to come up with their own Talents to fill the void for their classes?

2. With the Saves system you have, I'm sort of confused how they are calculated. Could you try to explain how the ones that don't go off one stat are calculated?
2a.) With that said, maybe for us non-mathy types an example could be provided in how the saves are converted? Or maybe even a table with what numbers would make what averages (as the max would only be "+5/+5" given the ability score cap is 20)?

Kryx
2018-02-13, 06:30 AM
Hey, thanks for the questions!


1. Seeing the Talents system, how do these interact with Homebrew classes (obviously they would have to be converted to having your tables to include Talents, but just for the sake of brevity)?
1a.) How did you come up with Talents for classes? I see the general ones are basically Feats, but are the ones for prerequisite classes features sucked out and put into Talents or what?
1b.) Depending on the answer to 1a, would a homebrewer have to come up with their own Talents to fill the void for their classes?
Talents are generally warlock invocations, RAW feats (commonly split into half the original power), and many custom invocation-like talents. For example the naturalist ones are mostly created by me using references from other materials. Those references might be pathfinder or other 5e homebrew.

Homebrew classes don't necessarily need talents, though it entirely depends on the design of the class. Think of talents like optional directions that a class could go. They are somewhat similar to subclasses, but provide much less depth. They are often to dabble or slightly increase the effectiveness of something that the character can already do. Ideally all classes should have class specific talents. Some inspiration for new talents could be old editions of the game (Pathfinder has a lot of options to pull from).

That said many talents are designed to work across class. For example all of the spellcasting talents work across multiple classes. The origin/flavor of said talents may change, but the effect is the same. So the amount of talents per class is generally going to be small.


2. With the Saves system you have, I'm sort of confused how they are calculated. Could you try to explain how the ones that don't go off one stat are calculated?
2a.) With that said, maybe for us non-mathy types an example could be provided in how the saves are converted? Or maybe even a table with what numbers would make what averages (as the max would only be "+5/+5" given the ability score cap is 20)?
Saves are specified in the document:

Fortitude uses your Constitution modifier
Reflex uses the average of your Strength and Dexterity modifiers
Will uses the average of the highest two modifiers from your Intelligence, Wisdom, and Charisma modifiers.
The first two are simple. Will is the highest 2 of the 3 modifiers.

I prefer to take it one step further and use ability scores to benefit odd scores, but that is optional. For example str 15 and dex 13 would be 15+13=28/2 = 14-10 = 4/2 = +2. If you only use ability modifiers then 2+1 = 3/2 = 1.5 which is rounded down to 1.

The page is a bit long already, but I can try to add an example in.

iridisink
2018-02-17, 09:29 PM
Dear Kryx,

I really enjoy your work, so much so Iím in the process of updating our game to use your house rules, and I had some questions about the Shifter.


Question 1: Aspect of the Beast

Could you clarify what the Shifter's Aspect of the Beast does? I canít quite work out what Challenge 3, 4 and 5 trait refer to. I would assume this has to do with casting the Animal Companion spell at a higher level unlocking more traits, but there still only seems to be primary and one secondary trait for each form. Casting it at 7th level gives the companion an enhancement, but as that is the Shifterís 11th level ability it seems unlikely that its 5th level ability is referring to enhancements.


Question 2: Wild Shape Size

If I am reading this correctly, when casting Animal Companion, the size of the animal is related to the level it is cast, so casting Animal Companion with 3 mana could summon a small rat or a small elephant, and their statistics would be the same except for their speeds, attacks and traits.

So, if a Human Shifter with a strength of 16 shifts into the form of a rat, what is his size and what is his strength? Is he tiny because that is the default size for a rat, or small because that is the default size for animal companions without spending more mana, or medium because that is his default size as a human?

If the answer is tiny, retaining his 16 strength seems odd.

If the answer is small or medium, is there any way to wild shape into other sized forms? Does he need to cast Polymorph or another spell to turn into a tiny rat, or a large animal?

The Shape Changer talent would let a character often turn into a rat or the like, but Polymorph replaces the targets mental ability scores, so transforming into a rat with rat-intelligence might make it difficult to, say, spy on a conversation.

Is there an option for a Naturalist to turn into a tiny, weak spy rat that I am missing?


Question 3: Homebrew Advice

One of my playerís is playing is a druid, and I worry about stripping his character of its current abilities. The other PCs translate very cleanly. I may need to do some homebrewing to make something that fits his character, using the templates for classes youíve set out. Could you tell me a bit about the problems with standard 5eís wild shape that led to your design decisions? As a class feature, how powerful do you feel the standard 5e wild shape (specifically Circle of the Moonís upgraded CR restrictions) is compared to your Shifterís wild shape?


Thank you very much for taking the time to read this, and for making these house rules!

Kryx
2018-02-18, 04:51 PM
Hi Iridisink,

Thanks for taking the time to take a look at my project!


Aspect of the Beast
I made a few revisions to the Animal companion since the Shifter was created, but the Shifter just needs some wording updates (everything is functionally the same). The second paragraph oe Aspect of the beast should read:


Additionally you gain a trait from the ďAnimal Form Secondary TraitĒ table for your beast form listed under ďAnimal CompanionsĒ at the end of the Spells document.

So for example if you're a panther then you get pounce, a wolf gets pack tactics, etc.

=======

Wild Shape Size
See the Wild Shape section: "you retain your other game statistics including your ability scores and alignment."

Wild Shape has no impact on the size nor the ability scores of the Shifter. In your example a medium sized Human shifter with 16 strength retains his 16 strength and turns into a medium sizes rat.

Polymorph is the expected way to take on different sized animals and would be more useful for things like scouting. Keep in mind there is a Naturalist talent that requires 5th level that allows the Shifter to transform into beasts with a challenge rating of 1 or lower if such a playstyle is desired.


=======

Druid/Wild Shape RAW Issues
Wild Shape, by RAW, is a poorly designed feature, imo.

From a flavor perspective I find it perposterous that every nature based spellcaster is able to master the art of turning into beasts. That is not the case in stories at all. In stories only an incredibly small amount of such spellcasters can turn into beasts.

From a mechanical perspective Wild Shape has an abundant amount of issues:


Beast options have very poor internal balance with some of the beasts being signficiantly stronger than others. The power balance is all over the place. This leads to players choosing a form based on function, not flavor.
RAW Wild Shape starts off very strong for the Moon Druid, but becomes quite weak as the levels go on.
RAW Wild Shape suffers many of the same problems that the Polymorph spell does in that there are a limited amount of beasts and many simply become bags of hit points
Ability scores of the character do not matter. Ability scores should matter and dumping certain scores should have an impact on the game or there is no point to have ability scores. Wild Shape is a huge offender here


My goal was to make a flavorful, useful, and balanced implementation of the Druid, Wild Shape, and Polymorph abilities and the result is what is written in my rules. I believe I have mostly accomplished those goals.


Thanks for taking the time to ask questions, providing me with feedback. Please feel free to challenge my opinions or raise your own ideas!

iridisink
2018-02-18, 07:07 PM
Thank you for the quick and detailed reply! That all makes perfect sense and it's given me a couple of ideas for small changes to suit my game. Cheers.

Kryx
2018-02-19, 04:47 AM
small changes to suit my game.
This is a good place to share such changes - I'm curious what doesn't work for your games.

Marcloure
2018-02-19, 11:23 PM
About the Heat Metal spell, on Kryx's Spells, pg. 53.

a) In "you can use a bonus action on each of your subsequent turns to attempt to heat the metal again", to attempt to heat the metal means to deal damage and disadvantage if the target fails a Con. save?

b) Higher Level casting increases the damage by 1d8, but the spell deals d6 damage. I guess the damage should then increase by 1d6 per slot level, no?

LurkerShep
2018-02-20, 01:25 AM
Two new questions from me that popped into my mind:

1. Will you also be making a character sheet (outside of Roll20) that is adapted to have your new things such as the new saves? Something like an editable PDF?

2. In the game I'm currently in (using the normal rules, not yours) I play a Blood Hunter (I know, outside of the scope of your rules, more a curiosity thing than anything) with the Dueling Fighting Style and was curious why the "or shields" was put on the Stance? Obviously if I ever can convince them to play your rules we can houserule ourselves that a Blood Hunter can also have Protection Stance so I can still Sword and Board, but just to humor me as I'm actually interested in the details.

Kryx
2018-02-20, 04:12 AM
Heat metal repeats the same saving throw with the same possible results, yes. The 1d8 at a higher level is a typo. https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1N4QC6EmXE0avgk8jK1aubJcaFoZDYw8b_DuPHh8aBTc/edit#gid=639488216 has it as 1d6, but it looks like I somehow missed updating it on my doc.


1. Will you also be making a character sheet (outside of Roll20) that is adapted to have your new things such as the new saves? Something like an editable PDF?
Probably not. I have a lot of projects on my plate and don't play with physical sheets. It'd be great if some interested community member would pursue this path to change the saves and update the skills.


Dueling Fighting Style and was curious why the "or shields" was put on the Stance?
I'll have to come back to this as I can't currently find the discussion about it. Previously I had it do +1 if wielding a shield, but this simplified it. Possibly related ideas: 1 handed weapon+shield did too much damage compared, make room for proper 1 handed weapon stance, or something else. The making room for 1 handed weapon stance feels a bit of a weak reason so I'll have to refresh my memory for why that change was made (and write it down!)

iridisink
2018-02-20, 04:55 AM
This is a good place to share such changes - I'm curious what doesn't work for your games.

I promise to come back and update you once I know myself.

I'm looking at changes to polymorph and/or the shapechanger talent to bring the level requirement down (lower spell level, lower CR limit on forms perhaps), as this party is only level 3. And I'm considering a mechanic where a wisdom check or save is made to retain your full mind when you are polymorphed, something a druid/shifter would get better at as they went up in levels. The DC could increase with the CR of the form, or maybe the check is repeated every ten minutes and the DC increases the longer you stay in the form.

Also looking for ways a shifter could learn to change into large size animals, perhaps with a strength bonus, at the cost of mana/as a primal energy. Even just the choice to cast enlarge on themselves as part of the transform action once they reach a certain level. Hm now that I think about it, being able to cast reduce on themselves as a primal energy allows for the possibility of adorably small elephants.

Really I just want to make my players happy, so I am hesitant to take away things they could do before or thought they will do when they reach higher levels. But you are right about the problematic design of Wild Shape, so I don't just want to revert to that.

Kryx
2018-02-20, 06:13 AM
3rd spell level is the lowest that I'd take Polymorph - it's comparable in power to fireball for example. 1 CR/spell level is a decent scalable option, though I'd be curious to math out the damage effectiveness and see if my earlier change holds up.

I'd really avoid strength bonuses on Shifting. Check out my DPR of Homebrew Classes (https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1sGvcz9vbq9yk4kRBEY6ZYGWhGO6-t7CWudznQcWPk74/edit). Even small adjustments to strength would drastically impact DPR as it raises to hit and damage. Using the mechanics of Enlarge/Reduce would be fine though, as long as the mana cost is there.

iridisink
2018-02-24, 01:35 AM
Hello again,

I have a couple of questions about the Occultist's Archfey power Moon Shadow.

The feature allows you to turn invisible immediately after casting a spell of 1st level or higher. The invisibility lasts until the end of your turn or until attack or cast a spell. But you can also turn invisible immediately before casting a spell as a once per rest ability.

Could you guide me through the utility of this feature? I could use it to avoid opportunity attacks, but I couldn't technically use the hide action as I have used my action to cast a spell (I could move behind full cover, I suppose). If the invisibility lasted until the beginning, or the end, of my next turn would that be too powerful?

If I turn invisible immediately before I cast a spell, does it end once I cast the spell, as that is one of the triggers the breaks the invisibility? Once I use the Before version I need to rest to do it again, but can I do the After version after using the Before version before resting? Why is the Before version worth triggering the need to rest, what makes it so considerably more useful than the After version?

Thank you for your help.

Kryx
2018-02-25, 10:43 AM
The before usage is restricted otherwise spells with an attack like blight would always be cast with advantage on the attack roll.

If used before a spell is cast then the invisibility would immediately end - that's correct. The only reason I have the before wording is for the attack spells.

For normal usage it can be used for anything you use invisibility for. It provides the caster with a significant defensive ability against being targeted by attacks and spells. Avoiding opportunity attacks is a good example, or slipping past detection is another. Hide action could be used the next round if desired, though that's the same with the other invisibility spells.
You don't need to be behind full cover to benefit from invisibility: creatures still can't see you which means they have to determine the space you are in somehow and still attack with disadvantage. Many spells require sight of a target so those are foiled by this as well.

iridisink
2018-02-25, 04:58 PM
Ah, the current text reads: "the invisibility lasts until the end of your turn", not next turn. This was the source of my confusion. That clears everything up!

Thank you again for all this work. One of the very cool things about your rules is the ability to mix-and-match abilities without too much fear of throwing off the balance. For example, one of my players is a warlock whose patron is a hybrid fey-shadow to suit the in-game story (shadow spells, shadow abilities at levels 6, 14, fey for all the rest). I know your rules aren't explicitly designed for this kind of hacking, but that flexibility is great for aligning the mechanical side with the story.

Kryx
2018-02-25, 05:11 PM
Ignore my mention of "end of next turn" earlier. I'm on vacation and only briefly read it. End of current turn as written is the intended behavior.
It's quite a strong 3rd level feature.


Thank you again for all this work. One of the very cool things about your rules is the ability to mix-and-match abilities without too much fear of throwing off the balance. For example, one of my players is a warlock whose patron is a hybrid fey-shadow to suit the in-game story (shadow spells, shadow abilities at levels 6, 14, fey for all the rest). I know your rules aren't explicitly designed for this kind of hacking, but that flexibility is great for aligning the mechanical side with the story.
Great to hear you enjoy the rules! Thanks for the feedback!

Ugganaut
2018-03-29, 04:41 AM
Aura of Discord
At 6th level, you emanate an aura of discord, which gives you the following benefits.
Cull the Herd. You have advantage on melee attack rolls against any creature that has one or more of its allies within 5 feet of it.
Treacherous Strike. If a creature within 5 feet of you misses you with a melee attack, you can use your reaction to force the attacker to reroll that attack against a creature of your choice that is also within 5 feet of the attacker. The ability fails and is wasted if the attacker is immune to being charmed.
The aura lasts for 1 minute or until you fall unconscious.
You can use this ability three times. You regain expended uses of it when you finish a short or long rest.

Was wondering, if the aura lasts for 1 minute, how is it activated?
Also, using the aura 3 times per short rest seems like a lot, compared to something like "push 10ft" from Tempest. Is it that you can only use Cull/Threacherous 3 times per aura?

Edit: Aura of Discord is level 6 Trickery Domain.

Ugganaut
2018-03-29, 06:54 AM
Another thing I noticed with the new mana system, is that 1/3 casters at level 4 and 5 have their mana pool increase from 2 to 3, but the limit is still 2. They have no way of spending that extra mana point, making the increase pointless. Was it just how the math worked out?

Kryx
2018-04-01, 08:20 AM
Aura of Discord is straight from the Paladin UA (https://media.wizards.com/2016/dnd/downloads/UAPaladin_SO_20161219_1.pdf).

I added "The aura lasts for 1 minute or until you fall unconscious." which makes it unclear. Removing that allows the ability to be used 3 times which should be more clear.
The tempest ability can be without limit (besides mana), though as you say it's a bit on the weak side. I plan to look through all houserules in the next month and clean some things up.


Another thing I noticed with the new mana system, is that 1/3 casters at level 4 and 5 have their mana pool increase from 2 to 3, but the limit is still 2. They have no way of spending that extra mana point, making the increase pointless. Was it just how the math worked out?
More mana without an increase in limit is there in case the mana can be used for other things. For example a monk multiclass could allow 1 mana to be used. There are other cases of 1 mana uses as well.

Ugganaut
2018-04-01, 09:08 AM
Aura of Discord is straight from the Paladin UA (https://media.wizards.com/2016/dnd/downloads/UAPaladin_SO_20161219_1.pdf).
Ah, so the 3 limit seems to be linked to Treacherous Strike, and Cull the Herd is always active with the aura.


More mana without an increase in limit is there in case the mana can be used for other things. For example a monk multiclass could allow 1 mana to be used. There are other cases of 1 mana uses as well.
Was looking at Bloodrager. That makes sense though.

Thanks again.

Kryx
2018-04-01, 11:47 AM
April 1st, 2018 (https://bitbucket.org/mlenser/5ehomebrew/wiki/Changelog#markdown-header-april-1st-2018)

LurkerShep
2018-04-01, 07:17 PM
With these minor changes to a small amount of the classes is it right to assume that the amount of Talents is in a sweet spot at the moment where there aren't too many of them given out in your view? I believe I read earlier in the thread that you thought you might shrink the amount the classes get down.

And aside, anything on the Dueling Fighting Stance change found (just as a quick reminder)?

Kryx
2018-04-02, 01:54 AM
9 talents is a good spot with a good progression - it'll remain.

As before Dueling fighting stance is balanced, adding about 11-13% over defense when the goal is ~10%.
Dueling needs a talent, and that may then adjust that math, but I struggle to make decent martial talents that aren't pure math. If you have ideas or links to peoples ideas please feel free to share.

LurkerShep
2018-04-02, 02:06 AM
I don't really have any ideas as I'm not a mathy person nor a homebrewer, I was more asking as that was the fighting style my character has (which, should I ever convince my group to move to your system, would be a moot point as you can stance dance in your rules). It was just mere curiosity about the change is all, I was interested in hearing the reasoning behind it. So thank you for the response!

Giegue
2018-04-02, 06:12 AM
All and all, this keeps getting better, so once again my hat is off to you. That being said, i thought about what you said about the undeath domain stuff, and I came up with this real quick. I have no idea how balanced it is, though, but it may give you ideas, so I'd appreciate an opinion on it...

Domain Spells

1st: Cause Fear, False Life
3rd: Blindness/Deafness, Ray of Enfeeblement
5th: Animate Dead, Vampiric Touch
7th: Blight, Death Ward
9th: Dance Macabre, Enervation

Skeletal Servants

At 3rd level, you learn how to raise your own personal skeleton minions. Once per-long rest, you can raise a single skeleton with the following benefits as a bonus action:

Its hit points (and hit point maximum) equal 2 x your proficiency bonus d8 + your Acolyte level.
It adds your proficiency bonus to its weapon damage rolls.
You can command skeletons you create this way as if they where created by an Animate Dead spell cast by you, and they remain reanimated for 24 hours, or until you finish a long rest (whichever comes first) Starting at 4th level, you can raise a number of skeletons equal to your proficiency bonus when you use this feature instead. However, when you do this, they gain none of the additional benefits this feature grants normally. (So their hit points are not increased and they do not recieve a damage bonus).

Channel Divinity

Also at 3rd level, you gain the following Channel Divinity options:

Command Undead. As an action, you target one undead you can see within 30ft and invoke your divine authority over it. It must make a Charisma saving throw. On a failed save, it must obey your commands for the next 24 hours, or until you use this Channel Divinity again. Undead who's CR are equal to or greater than your level are immune to this Channel Divinity.

Marshal Undead. As an action, you rally the undead under your control, making them fight harder. When you do this, all undead you control that can hear your voice gain advantage on their weapon attack rolls for 1 minute.

Master Reanimator

At 6th level, you learn how to surpass the normal limits of necromancy and animate stronger undead. If your mana limit would not normally allow you to cast Animate Dead, you can treat your mana limit as 5 for the purpose of determining whether or not you can prepare and cast Animate Dead, as well as for actually casting the spell (but not any other purposes). When you can cast Animate Dead, you can extend its casting time to 1 hour to have it create stronger undead. If you do this, that Animate Dead spell can target small and large creatures, and non-humanoids, in addition to the medium humanoids it could target normally. Any Animate Dead spell you cast this way also gains an expensive material component: 25gp worth of black onyx per-hit die of each undead the spell would raise (which is consumed in the casting).

Additionally, any skeletons or zombies created by that Animate Dead spell do not use their standard monster statistics. Instead, they use the statistics of the creatures they where in life altered by the skeleton or zombie NPC features (DMG pg. 282). However, regardless of how many times you cast Animate Dead this way, you can only control a number of skeletons and zombies with statistics altered by this feature whose total combined CRs do not exceed your Acolyte level. (Your DM also witholds the right to bar you from reanimating any creature they deem too problematic.)

Unlife Healer

Starting at 14th level, you learn how to use your heal the undead. You treat undead as living creatures instead of undead for the effects of Acolyte spells and class features that heal hit points or remove conditions (such as Cure Wounds, Greater Restoration and your Lay on Hands Channel Divinity). Additionally, whenever you would heal hit points due to the effect of a Vampiric Touch spell, you can instead distribute that healing among yourself any number of undead you control within 30ft. (the total combined healing all creatures you heal this way receive must equal the hit points that use of Vampiric Touch would heal.) You can also make a ranged spell attack with a range of 30ft instead of a melee spell attack when using a Vampiric Touch spell.

Undead Transformation

At 20th level you achieve your much-sought after transcendence, entering into a twilight state between life and undeath. You no longer age, and do not need to eat, sleep or breath to survive. (Though you may still ingest substances, take rests and gain the benefits of both.) You canít be blinded, deafened, frightened, or poisoned, and if an attack is a critical hit against you, it doesnít deal its extra damage to you. You also gain resistance to your bludgeoning, piercing and slashing damage from non-magical sources.

However, you count as undead rather than living for spells and abilities that specifically target only undead or effect undead differently than other creatures. (So a Cure Wounds spell cast by an ally would not heal you. However, due to your Unlife Healer feature, a Cure Wounds spell you cast on yourself would.)

Additionally, with your body primed for transition into undeath, you are now ready to undergo your transformation into a true undead. With your DM's permission, you may complete a dark ritual that allows you to transform into an undead creature of your choice (Typical choices being the Lich, Mummy Lord, Vampire and for Paladins the Death Knight). Your DM determines how exactly this will change your statistics and what the ritual entails, though it typically involves expensive material components and committing at least one horrifically evil act. (Such as sacrificing a celestial or humanoid child.) Your DM may make you undergo a trial or quest to discover the instructions for this ritual, or may make it a reward for you to receive at the end of the campaign.

Again, no idea how balanced this mock-up subclass is, but I took your ideas/advice on it and created this VERY rough mock up for you to comment on/look at if/when you have the time.

EDIT: Made some edits to the domain, mostly clarifying language and fixing up a few of the rougher features. Still may not be totally balanced, though.

EDIT #2: Just realized the 6th level ability was useless to Paladins when they gain it, so I altered it to make it not useless for paladins at the level they get it. More balance comments appreciated, as normal.

Kryx
2018-04-02, 06:46 AM
I'm in the middle of a rework of spells which will alter how I do subclasses. That rework makes it unnecessary to have multple of the same spell at different power levels (Invisibility/Greater Invisibility, Lesser Restoration/Greater Restoration, Animate Dead/Create Undead/etc). That will impact the undeath theme in the new system, but I can try to provide some quick feedback:


Skeletal Servants
At 3rd level, you learn how to raise your own personal skeleton minions. Once per-long rest, you can raise a single skeleton with the following benefits as a bonus action:

Its hit points (and hit point maximum) equal 2 x your proficiency bonus d8 + your Acolyte level.
It adds your proficiency bonus to its weapon damage rolls.
You can command skeletons you create this way as if they where created by an Animate Dead spell cast by you, and they remain reanimated for 24 hours, or until you finish a long rest (whichever comes first) Starting at 4th level, you can raise a number of skeletons equal to your proficiency bonus when you use this feature instead. However, when you do this, they gain none of the additional benefits this feature grants normally. (So their hit points are not increased and they do not recieve a damage bonus).
This feature is to fix the statblock of undead creatures. I'd suggest fixing them directly instead of doing it via this feature. I created a whole spreadsheet to calculate the effectiveness of creature summons (https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1N4QC6EmXE0avgk8jK1aubJcaFoZDYw8b_DuPHh8aBTc/edit#gid=361009768). So creating a CR 1 skeleton that has +5 to hit and does 2d6 + 3 damage would be sufficient and then anyone who casts the spell can make it useful. Conjure Animals and similar spells are also available to all subclasses so Animate Dead should be as well. Your subclass is using a subclass to fix an underpowered spell - not a good option imo.


Channel Divinity
Also at 3rd level, you gain the following Channel Divinity options:

Command Undead. As an action, you target one undead you can see within 30ft and invoke your divine authority over it. It must make a Charisma saving throw. On a failed save, it must obey your commands for the next 24 hours, or until you use this Channel Divinity again. Undead who's CR are equal to or greater than your level are immune to this Channel Divinity.

Marshal Undead. As an action, you rally the undead under your control, making them fight harder. When you do this, all undead you control that can hear your voice gain advantage on their weapon attack rolls for 1 minute.
As I said last time "Control Undead" exists in my Death domain and the Oathbreaker. It is worded better than your "Command Undead".

"Marshal Undead" seems out of character for undead. It is flavored as a morale booster, but should be flavored with necrotic damage or something else. I'd have to think through options here.


Master Reanimator
At 6th level, you learn how to surpass the normal limits of necromancy and animate stronger undead. When you can cast Animate Dead, you can extend its casting time to 1 hour to have it create stronger undead. If you do this, that Animate Dead spell can target small and large creatures, and non-humanoids, in addition to the medium humanoids it could target normally. Any Animate Dead spell you cast this way also gains an expensive material component: 25gp worth of black onyx per-hit die of each undead the spell would raise.

Additionally, any skeletons or zombies created by that Animate Dead spell do not use their standard monster statistics. Instead, they use the statistics of the creatures they where in life altered by the skeleton or zombie NPC features (DMG pg. 282). However, regardless of how many times you cast Animate Dead this way, you can only control a number of skeletons and zombies with statistics altered by this feature whose total combined CRs do not exceed your Acolyte level. (Your DM witholds the right to bar you from reanimating any creature they deem too problematic.)
As above animate dead should be a viable spell and not need these type of fixes.
Beyond that this is insanely overpowered. PCs will generally fight equivalent level CR creatures or higher and as soon as one is killed the PC now has a NPC pet with the CR +/- 2 of the PC level. A 6th level PC having a CR 8 pet is off the charts broken. For comparison a Wizard has to be level 9 to summon a CR 5 elemental which they don't even have full control over.


Unlife Healer
Starting at 14th level, you learn how to use your heal the undead. You treat undead as living creatures instead of undead for the effects of Acolyte spells and class features that heal hit points or remove conditions (such as Cure Wounds, Greater Restoration and your Lay on Hands Channel Divinity). Additionally, You can make a ranged spell attack with a range of 30ft instead of a melee spell attack when using the Vampiric Touch spell by using your move as a part of that attack. (you do not actually move when you do this.) Whenever you would heal hit points with a Vampiric Touch attack made this way, you can instead distribute that healing among yourself any number of undead you control within 30ft. (the total combined healing all creatures you heal this way receive must equal the hit points that use of Vampiric Touch would heal.)
The first part seems mechanically fine, though out of flavor of a necromancer. A necromancer would just reanimate the bones/flesh after letting it fall apart or it would get a new body to animate.
The second part is mechanically problematic - 5e doesn't have a move action and using a part of a move as a resource is faux pas. If anything it should be a bonus action. The rest seems fine though.


Undead Transformation
At 20th level you achieve your much-sought after transcendence, entering into a twilight state between life and undeath. You no longer age, and do not need to eat, sleep or breath to survive. (Though you may still ingest substances, take rests and gain the benefits of both.) You canít be blinded, deafened, frightened, or poisoned, and if an attack is a critical hit against you, it doesnít deal its extra damage to you. You also gain resistance to your bludgeoning, piercing and slashing damage from non-magical sources.

However, you count as undead rather than living for spells and abilities that specifically target only undead or effect undead differently than other creatures. (So a Cure Wounds spell cast by an ally would not heal you. However, due to your Unlife Healer feature, a Cure Wounds spell you cast on yourself would.)

Additionally, with your body primed for transition into undeath, you are now ready to undergo your transformation into a true undead. With your DM's permission, you may complete a dark ritual that allows you to transform into an undead creature of your choice (Typical choices being Lich, Mummy Lord or Vampire). Your DM determines how exactly this will change your statistics and what the ritual entails, though it typically involves expensive material components and committing at least one horrifically evil act. (Such as sacrificing a celestial or humanoid child.) Your DM may make you undergo a trial or quest to discover the instructions for this ritual, or may make it a reward for you to receive at the end of the campaign.
Undead Transformation seems like something that would occur around 14th level (See "Indestructible Life" under the Undying Occultist or "Resilient Warrior" under the War Domain Acolyte or "Earth Aspect" under the Iron Mountain Monk). I'd drop the blinded condition immunity and a few others, instead favoring the ones used by the lich. Critical avoidance is not a thing in 5e so I'd drop that.

I wouldn't make a lich transformation part of a subclass - none of the subclasses that are themed on dragons, phoenixes, etc turn into those creatures. The idea of "Throw out your character sheet and use this statblock" doesn't work well. If it's executed well I could see it work, but not via that method.

Giegue
2018-04-02, 06:52 AM
Thats understandable. Like I said, it was/is all very rough. I was just spitballing ideas, is all. Thanks for all the help, though! You talk about altering the spells instead of actually making the subclass, which is a fine idea if the spells where actually altered. However, as of now, your still using the same exact animate dead spell from core, which is pretty terrible without the bonuses the school of Necromancy wizard gets in vanella 5e...the most important of which is the health increase, as one of the two main reasons the skeletons and zombies from animate dead are so bad is their extreme frailty/lack of HP.

I know you think the wizard bonuses are a bad idea, but I feel the most simple/elegant sollution to this necromancer issue is to just turn the school of necromancy's undead thralls feature into a talent available to Acolytes, Mages and Occultists...which would allow all three classes to be decent with animate dead without reinventing the wheel or leaving it in the hands of the DM to alter monster statblocks themselves/require DM fiat to make the spell useful. I understand if your against this and all, but I really think its the best solution to the "animate dead issue", and it would likely look something like this:

Undead Mastery
Prerequisites: Acolyte, Mage, or Occultist, ability to cast Animate Dead

You can animate stronger undead and control more undead than other spellcasters. When you cast the spell Animate Dead, you can target one additional corpse or bone pile and create one additional skeleton or zombie (as applicable). Additionally, when you create one or more undead creatures with a necromancy spell (such as Animate Dead or Create Undead), they gain the following additional benefits:

They increase their hit point maximums by your level
They add your proficiency bonus to their weapon damage rolls

Conversely, if you plan on ever giving other classes such as sorcerers and naturalists a way to access animate dead (such as converting the spores druid circle from UA to the naturallist), you can just add those classes onto the list of ones that can take this talent/into the prerequisites so literally every spellcasting class can be made into a necromancer instead of just limiting it to one archetype, if thats not what you want.

Kryx
2018-04-02, 07:19 AM
Thats understandable. Like I said, it was/is all very rough. I was just spitballing ideas, is all. Thanks for all the help, though! You talk about altering the spells instead of actually making the subclass, which is a fine idea if the spells where actually altered. However, as of now, your still using the same exact animate dead spell from core, which is pretty terrible without the bonuses the school of Necromancy wizard gets in vanella 5e...the most important of which is the health increase, as one of the two main reasons the skeletons and zombies from animate dead are so bad is their extreme frailty/lack of HP.
I did a rough DPR calculation in the spreadsheet that I linked. Allow Animate dead to either summon 2 CR 1/2 or 1 CR 1. For CR 1/2 just add multiattack. For CR 1 add multiattack and increase the dex modifier by 1. Increase their HP to match CR 1 creatures and you're good to go.


I know you think the wizard bonuses are a bad idea, but I feel the most simple/elegant sollution to this necromancer issue is to just turn the school of necromancy's undead thralls feature into a talent available to Acolytes, Mages and Occultists...which would allow all three classes to be decent with animate dead without reinventing the wheel or leaving it in the hands of the DM to alter monster statblocks themselves/require DM fiat to make the spell useful. I understand if your against this and all, but I really think its the best solution to the "animate dead issue"
My feedback will always be that balancing the spell via a subclass is a bad idea. You're free to handle it however you wish, but keep in mind that doing it the way you're doing it just makes it a worse version of other conjure spells as those work by default and don't have effectively dead subclass features to fix the spells.

Just modify the monsters yourself and save yourself the trouble of subclass features. The DM doesn't need to do so - you can provide a higher CR skeleton. Monster CRs needn't be static - there are rules for adjusting them in the DMG. Trying to keep static CR monsters and adjusting them elsewhere will always provide poor results imo. Things like AC, multiattack, resistances, and other features that should exist for higher CR monsters will be lost.


Conversely, if you plan on ever giving other classes such as sorcerers and naturalists a way to access animate dead (such as converting the spores druid circle from UA to the naturallist), you can just add those classes onto the list of ones that can take this talent/into the prerequisites so literally every spellcasting class can be made into a necromancer instead of just limiting it to one archetype, if thats not what you want.
In my new spell themes version every class will be able to access any theme that they desire. So a Druid could choose the Undeath theme and the spells in that theme will be viable themselves without needing a subclass/talent tax that fixes it.

Giegue
2018-04-02, 08:47 AM
So in your new spells theme version are you going to make the updates to the undead minions you listed above "canon" and an official part of the actual rules text or are you still gonna need DM approval of homebrew custom statblocks for undead (aka DM fiat) to make animate dead useful? If the former, then thats a fine fix and I look forward to seeing the new version.

Kryx
2018-04-02, 09:09 AM
I will add standard statblocks - I've already done so for Acid Elemental, Ice Elemental, and Lightning Elemental.

I'm cleaning up the system now and will post a rough preview within the next few hours. (not including undeath)

Giegue
2018-04-02, 10:01 AM
Alright, cool! I will ask, though, is the Acolyte staying wis or cha for both archetypes? I asked because I REALLY liked how you can now have charismatic clerics (which I always thought should be a thing) and wise Paladins, and would find it sad if Clerics where forced to go Wis and Paladins forced to go Cha again. So I will throw my vote in the hate now for keeping that aspect of acolyte in-tact. I also vote for keeping their unarmored defense feature, as the "cloth/robe-wearing priest" is a pretty iconic character trope due to MMOs and games like Final Fantasy, and something both myself and my friends all have wanted to be in this game for a while.

Kryx
2018-04-02, 10:08 AM
I will ask, though, is the Acolyte staying wis or cha for both archetypes? I asked because I REALLY liked how you can now have charismatic clerics (which I always thought should be a thing) and wise Paladins, and would find it sad if Clerics where forced to go Wis and Paladins forced to go Cha again. So I will throw my vote in the hate now for keeping that aspect of acolyte in-tact.
I expect classes, archetypes, and subclasses to change in the following ways:

the mana and mana costs will be adjusted to the 1-6 mana system that I'm working on
classes will start with X amount of themes (say fire and frost)
subclass spells will likely be eliminated in favor of open ended spell choices or possibly limited to a theme
some subclass features will be moved to spells (which are granted 1/short rest for free or howver appropriate)
general clean up



I also vote for keeping their unarmored defense feature, as the "cloth/robe-wearing priest" is a pretty iconic character trope due to MMOs and games like Final Fantasy, and something both myself and my friends all have wanted to be in this game for a while.
I only recently wrote that rule down. It's been in my head for a while, but now it's officially in my rules. It won't change either.


I will keep the old version available for those who prefer to stick to 5e spell levels.

Kryx
2018-04-02, 11:16 AM
A preview of Thematic Spells (https://drive.google.com/open?id=1IcpftMibmjr_3mGHkioneZKx3kV8vNxw). The themes completed so far likely will remain pretty similar in the final version. I'm working on other themes now.

I'm using Spell Themes Balance (https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1_ig6KbPdhBrkIp3JqgHIRR8XbBTu-O1zNKuLJXgu378/edit#gid=823117826) to balance damage spells. Themes TODO isn't set in stone - I'm whittling my way down to figure out where everything fits.

Feel free to suggest spells that fit the theme and aren't already covered in my lists. My general goal is around 20 for major themes (Fire, Frost, Earth, Shadow, etc) with less for less prominant themes (Corrosion, Poison, Time). I generally prefer to pull ideas from 5e and PF, though could possibly use other sources.

Ugganaut
2018-04-02, 11:55 PM
A preview of Thematic Spells (https://drive.google.com/open?id=1IcpftMibmjr_3mGHkioneZKx3kV8vNxw). The themes completed so far likely will remain pretty similar in the final version. I'm working on other themes now.

This looks really interesting. Look forward to seeing the finished product.
I know my group would hesitate with the removal of mundane spell components, even though I personally like the simplicity. Our DM hasn't figured out a focus bypasses them already.

I only had a brief skim through, I'll try have a better read when you're done.
A few things I noticed.
Meteor Swarm doesn't have a radius for the spheres. Edit: Which I now see spells have default areas listed at the start.
Armor of Agathys seems like a Frost spell.
Shadow Anchor looks particularly powerful for a cantrip. One failed save and they are restrained until they successfully escape using their action for the round.
Firebolt does 1d8 instead of 1d10. Although igniting things could be a useful secondary benefit(or hindrance), other cantrips like Frostbite do the same damage with a more useful secondary effect. This might be a benefit or taking a particular theme though.
I've mentioned before, I personally like your original balancing of cantrips. Firebolt was d10, a "weak" damage type(due to common resistance and possible collateral damage), good range. From there, the more useful the damage type/secondary effect, the less damage/range it did. Frostbite and Vicious Mockery were d6 for example. Eldritch Blast maybe d8 or d6 due to good damage type, range, and multiple attacks stacking with things like Hex.

What made you start this rewrite?

Kryx
2018-04-03, 03:07 AM
I know my group would hesitate with the removal of mundane spell components, even though I personally like the simplicity. Our DM hasn't figured out a focus bypasses them already.
Check out Fixing Spell Components: Keep Your Flavour, Mike Mearls, I Donít Like It (http://dmsworkshop.com/2017/04/14/fixing-spell-components-keep-your-flavour-mike-mearls-i-dont-like-it/). Spell components, as they work in D&D, only capture a small subset of fantasy ways of casting a spell. It should be an option to use them, but I'm aiming to not have it be the default option. In general they have almost no impact on mechanical balance, only hinder some cases like TWF, Sword & Board, etc.
I'm aiming to provide them as a variant option, but we'll see how that is fleshed out when I get there.


Meteor Swarm doesn't have a radius for the spheres. Edit: Which I now see spells have default areas listed at the start.
As you've found out: Spell areas have default sizes that scale with the mana expended. This is to allow spells like fireball to start at a size comparable for the mana and grow from there. See the "Changes" section at the end which talks about linear scaling a bit.


Armor of Agathys seems like a Frost spell.
I chose shadow after reading https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carceri#Agathys. I'm unsure if ice or "void" is a larger component of Agathys. Perhaps ice is more important. I'll re-examine.


Shadow Anchor looks particularly powerful for a cantrip. One failed save and they are restrained until they successfully escape using their action for the round.
Shadow Anchor is grappled, not restrained. Grappled is effectively speed 0 while restrained is much much stronger. Perhaps I'll increase the damage and change the grappled condition to 1 turn.


Firebolt does 1d8 instead of 1d10. Although igniting things could be a useful secondary benefit(or hindrance), other cantrips like Frostbite do the same damage with a more useful secondary effect. This might be a benefit or taking a particular theme though.
I've mentioned before, I personally like your original balancing of cantrips. Firebolt was d10, a "weak" damage type(due to common resistance and possible collateral damage), good range. From there, the more useful the damage type/secondary effect, the less damage/range it did. Frostbite and Vicious Mockery were d6 for example. Eldritch Blast maybe d8 or d6 due to good damage type, range, and multiple attacks stacking with things like Hex.
Spell Themes Balance (https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1_ig6KbPdhBrkIp3JqgHIRR8XbBTu-O1zNKuLJXgu378/edit#gid=823117826) indicates that cantrips have a good internal balance. Fire Bolt for example has some benefits over frostbite: It has a range of 120 vs 60 for frostbite, it is an attack which generally will have a 65% chance to hit compared to 55% change of frostbite applying, it can crit which makes it deal ~5% more damage on average, and lastly it can damage objects.
If you think a cantrip is not balanced vs other cantrips please point out where my math has failed. Disadvantage on next attack for example I've weighted to be worth a modifier of 26% more valuable than no effect. That's calculated on the spells settings page.
Damage types being different in value is quite overblown. People have this idea that fire spells are less valuable due to the plethora of demons and devils in the MM, but I've found that to simply be untrue. I'm not sure what you mean by "collateral damage" as it doesn't set things on fire.


What made you start this rewrite?
If you check the changes section you can see several aspects of the 5e spell slot system that do not function well. I've tried to work within it for a very long time, balancing damage and trying to provide options for other damage types, but I've come to the point where it doesn't work for various reasons.

Ugganaut
2018-04-03, 05:44 AM
Check out Fixing Spell Components: Keep Your Flavour, Mike Mearls, I Donít Like It (http://dmsworkshop.com/2017/04/14/fixing-spell-components-keep-your-flavour-mike-mearls-i-dont-like-it/). Spell components, as they work in D&D, only capture a small subset of fantasy ways of casting a spell. It should be an option to use them, but I'm aiming to not have it be the default option. In general they have almost no impact on mechanical balance, only hinder some cases like TWF, Sword & Board, etc.
I'm aiming to provide them as a variant option, but we'll see how that is fleshed out when I get there.
I'd prefer it as a variant option too, for those that like that gritty feel. Aside from consumed components, which you still have, I find them completely pointless at best. I liked the Focus solution, because it gave casters a reason to carry their iconic symbols(staff, wand, holy symbol etc), now that implements aren't a thing.


I chose shadow after reading https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carceri#Agathys. I'm unsure if ice or "void" is a larger component of Agathys. Perhaps ice is more important. I'll re-examine.
I personally don't like spells with names like Agathys. It makes it feel so limited. I'd rather things like that be features in archetypes/subclasses. Mordenkainens Faithful Hound doesn't make much sense if your world has no Mordenkainen. Ice Armor seems like a better name for that spell. Just my opinion of course.



Shadow Anchor is grappled, not restrained. Grappled is effectively speed 0 while restrained is much much stronger. Perhaps I'll increase the damage and change the grappled condition to 1 turn.
For a cantrip, I think 1 turn would be better.


Damage types being different in value is quite overblown. People have this idea that fire spells are less valuable due to the plethora of demons and devils in the MM, but I've found that to simply be untrue. I'm not sure what you mean by "collateral damage" as it doesn't set things on fire.
Our DM's beg to differ :) Firebolt for instance, says "A flammable object hit by this spell ignites if it isnít being worn or carried." Which is fine if you hit your target, but if it misses, it hits something else usually. AoE fire spells tend to light up flammable objects. Thunder is another one I have issues with due to sound and unstable terrain in our games. Creature resistance isn't often an issue as you said, but combine those two things, and I'd prefer d8 force than d8 fire.

Ugganaut
2018-04-03, 06:20 AM
Flame Blade vs Shadow Blade.
Both 2 mana, 5mins/mana.
Both do 2d8 damage.
Shadow Blade augments using d8, Flame Blade d6.
Shadow Blade has advantage on dim/darkness, while Flame Blade is bright light. Flame Blade produces bright light, so unless they can negate it, it always has advantage day or night.
Both say "If you drop the weapon or throw it, it dissipates at the end of the turn.", but only Shadow Blade has a range.
It's possible there is nothing wrong with either of them, if the trade off for the constant advantage of Flame Blade is off-set by lower augment and no thrown option - just remove "or throw it" from Flame Blade.

Fiery Rebuke - Spell does 3d6, then "Augment. The damage increases by 4d6 for each additional mana expended."
Is that the right augment? Not use to the higher augment numbers.
Edit: Actually this seems to be common throughout, so guessing its by design.

Kryx
2018-04-03, 10:43 AM
I'd prefer it as a variant option too, for those that like that gritty feel. Aside from consumed components, which you still have, I find them completely pointless at best. I liked the Focus solution, because it gave casters a reason to carry their iconic symbols(staff, wand, holy symbol etc), now that implements aren't a thing.
Iconic symbols is something interesting to think about, but they shouldn't be required. A possible boon like 4e implements.


I personally don't like spells with names like Agathys. It makes it feel so limited. I'd rather things like that be features in archetypes/subclasses. Mordenkainens Faithful Hound doesn't make much sense if your world has no Mordenkainen. Ice Armor seems like a better name for that spell. Just my opinion of course.
In general I'm removing all named aspects of spells. So "Melf's Acid Arrow" becomes "Acid Arrow"
I agree with your message, but Armor of Agathys isn't Ice Armor (http://www.d20pfsrd.com/magic/all-spells/i/ice-armor/) so I have to be a bit careful with the naming. I'm wondering if Armor of Agathys even has design space if I add a "Winter's Bite" (like fiery rebuke) or "Ice Armor" (like gale cloak). Perhaps I should add one like shadow that is a bit of AC and a bit of damage. Then Armor of Agathys doesn't have much design value imo.


For a cantrip, I think 1 turn would be better.
Agreed - I'll make this change


Our DM's beg to differ :) Firebolt for instance, says "A flammable object hit by this spell ignites if it isnít being worn or carried." Which is fine if you hit your target, but if it misses, it hits something else usually. AoE fire spells tend to light up flammable objects. Thunder is another one I have issues with due to sound and unstable terrain in our games. Creature resistance isn't often an issue as you said, but combine those two things, and I'd prefer d8 force than d8 fire.
Flammable is not the same thing as damage resistance. You're talking about the ability to damage objects as not all fire spells have that ability (spells specify if they do or do not have such ability)
If you play with the misses hit other creatures/objects rule (variant) then damaging objects matter, but that is not the normal rules for Fire Bolt.

I'll have to think about it, but Fire Bolt is already a strong cantrip for its niche (range, attack&crit, damage objects). If you play by the misses hit other creatures/objects rule then I'd say Fire Bolt isn't the cantrip to use in closer proximity and one should probably favor a different cantrip.


Flame Blade vs Shadow Blade.
Both 2 mana, 5mins/mana.
Both do 2d8 damage.
Shadow Blade augments using d8, Flame Blade d6.
Shadow Blade has advantage on dim/darkness, while Flame Blade is bright light. Flame Blade produces bright light, so unless they can negate it, it always has advantage day or night.
Both say "If you drop the weapon or throw it, it dissipates at the end of the turn.", but only Shadow Blade has a range.
It's possible there is nothing wrong with either of them, if the trade off for the constant advantage of Flame Blade is off-set by lower augment and no thrown option - just remove "or throw it" from Flame Blade.
Flame Blade augmenting as a d6 is a mistake. Spells will never augment as a dice different than the main dice (unless there are multiple damage dice sizes and then it'll choose one or both)
I'll take a second look at the other aspects of the spells later tonight.


Fiery Rebuke - Spell does 3d6, then "Augment. The damage increases by 4d6 for each additional mana expended."
Is that the right augment? Not use to the higher augment numbers.
Edit: Actually this seems to be common throughout, so guessing its by design.
Augmentation of spells is intended to provide actual improvements, not minor 1d6 improvements. It's one of the design goals. It is all still in line with the guidelines I've set which is quite close to the DMG guidelines for spell damage.

Kryx
2018-04-03, 12:42 PM
Changelog to Thematic spells:

General

Added a note about more prominent themes for each damage type under "Changes" (many existed before, but a few are added below)

Corrosion

Eruptive Pustule now does half as much damage the next round and its damage has been adjusted

Earth

Added Rock Shield

Fire

Flame Blade reworked a bit to remove the advantage and increase the damage

Frost

Winterís Bite replaces Armor of Agathys

Shadow

Shadow Anchor already lasted 1 round, though I've recalculated the damage and increased it to 1d8 from 1d6
Shadow Blade now has an after-image like umbral blade. It deals half as much damage as normal
Umbral Weapon automatically hits on a miss

Storm

Wrath of the Storm now prevents reactions and its damage has been adjusted
Lightning Lure damage increased to 1d12 from 1d10

Giegue
2018-04-03, 08:08 PM
I am really digging the spell themes....I can't wait to see Undeath come out since thats the one I REALLY want. Likewise, I assume that the classes will start out with access to different numbers or free choices of spell themes to address the disparity between d8 casters like acolyte/naturalist and d6 casters like mage, occultist etc...? Like, say, a mage has her choice of four spell themes and gets one free bonus theme from her arcane tradition, while an acolyte has her choice of two spell themes and gets one free bonus theme from her domain choice and then the life theme as a second free bonus theme, regardless of domain.

Kryx
2018-04-04, 01:29 AM
I am really digging the spell themes....I can't wait to see Undeath come out since thats the one I REALLY want. Likewise, I assume that the classes will start out with access to different numbers or free choices of spell themes to address the disparity between d8 casters like acolyte/naturalist and d6 casters like mage, occultist etc...? Like, say, a mage has her choice of four spell themes and gets one free bonus theme from her arcane tradition, while an acolyte has her choice of two spell themes and gets one free bonus theme from her domain choice and then the life theme as a second free bonus theme, regardless of domain.
If you read the spells known section under spellcasting you'll see how it works. The number of themes will be up to each character, with each theme coming at the cost of spells known.

I expect to aim for 15-25 spells known and about 3-5 themes for a full caster as the norm. We'll see what works. Also keep in mind I'm combining some spells so a few less spells known should be required.

The mage will have the ability to swap out X amount of spells known on a rest (which is effectively what prepared spells are). The acolyte will have something similar. I think I'll swap the naturalist to spells known.

Ugganaut
2018-04-04, 01:55 AM
"Umbral Weapon
2 mana; concentration, 1 hour/mana
As an action, a nonmagical weapon you touch becomes a magic weapon. For the duration, a shadowy afterimage trails behind the targeted weapon, potentially damaging foes even when the weapon misses. If the weapon misses a creature, it takes psychic damage equal to 2d4 + your spellcasting ability modifier."

With Shadow Blade, you get a consolation prize for missing - half damage. Umbral Weapon you'll most likely do more damage on a miss than a hit. Is that right?

"Alternatively, you can touch a quiver containing arrows or bolts. When a target is hit by ranged weapon attack using a piece of ammunition drawn from the quiver, the ammunition has the same shadowy afterimage. The spellís magic ends on a piece of ammunition after it hits or misses. "

If the arrow misses, it doesn't have the afterimage, and therefore doesn't do damage on the miss?

Ugganaut
2018-04-04, 04:44 AM
Stoneskin.
What do you think of an augment option to make it apply to magical b/p/s as well?

Kryx
2018-04-04, 05:07 AM
"Umbral Weapon
2 mana; concentration, 1 hour/mana
As an action, a nonmagical weapon you touch becomes a magic weapon. For the duration, a shadowy afterimage trails behind the targeted weapon, potentially damaging foes even when the weapon misses. If the weapon misses a creature, it takes psychic damage equal to 2d4 + your spellcasting ability modifier."

With Shadow Blade, you get a consolation prize for missing - half damage. Umbral Weapon you'll most likely do more damage on a miss than a hit. Is that right?
Average chance to hit is around 65% so the chance to miss is around 35%.
Normal magical weapons add 1d4 to the damage of a weapon. .65*2.5 = 1.625
Umbral weapon adds 2d4 + spellcasting on a miss. .35*(5+3) = 2.8. If I remove the spellcasting ability it'd be .35*5 = 1.75

Hitting generally has many more benefits like rage, sneak attack, GWF, or other cases so hitting still wins out. I'm not fully happy with the implementation. I'll probably change it.


"Alternatively, you can touch a quiver containing arrows or bolts. When a target is hit by ranged weapon attack using a piece of ammunition drawn from the quiver, the ammunition has the same shadowy afterimage. The spellís magic ends on a piece of ammunition after it hits or misses. "

If the arrow misses, it doesn't have the afterimage, and therefore doesn't do damage on the miss?
I'll update the wording here. Though as above I'm not fully happy with the implementation so I'll revisit it.


Stoneskin.
What do you think of an augment option to make it apply to magical b/p/s as well?
Would probably be fine - magical weapons on monsters are rare anyways. Perhaps 1 more mana.

Ugganaut
2018-04-04, 06:36 AM
Hitting generally has many more benefits like rage, sneak attack, GWF, or other cases so hitting still wins out. I'm not fully happy with the implementation. I'll probably change it.

There would be situations, like a full caster, where you're weapon will most likely be a staff or dagger. Admittedly you'd be better off using something like Shadow Blade, but any situation where the goal would be to get disadvantage and miss just seems wrong. See how the changes go.

Will you add a Force theme?

Was talking with my DM about the new spell themes, he really liked the idea. Looking forward to seeing the final product, great work as always :)

Kryx
2018-04-04, 07:07 AM
There would be situations, like a full caster, where you're weapon will most likely be a staff or dagger. Admittedly you'd be better off using something like Shadow Blade, but any situation where the goal would be to get disadvantage and miss just seems wrong. See how the changes go.
Indeed it's a bit weird, though there is one or two cases by RAW that deal half damage on an attack miss so I think Shadow Blade's functionality is ok. We'll see what I can come up with for Umbral.


Will you add a Force theme?
Force theme is already there on page 35. I'm still deciding the theme layout between force and telekinesis as there is some crossover, especially in 3.5/PF psionics.


Was talking with my DM about the new spell themes, he really liked the idea. Looking forward to seeing the final product, great work as always :)
I think the idea is really promising. I've already been working on it for quite a while now and it'll probably take quite a bit more work, but I'm excited to see how it'll work in the end. Thanks for the continued feedback.

Ugganaut
2018-04-04, 09:03 AM
Indeed it's a bit weird, though there is one or two cases by RAW that deal half damage on an attack miss so I think Shadow Blade's functionality is ok. We'll see what I can come up with for Umbral.
Yeah Shadow Blade is fine, half damage is a good mechanic imo. Its the primary effect on a miss(Umbral) that feels wrong.


Force theme is already there on page 35. I'm still deciding the theme layout between force and telekinesis as there is some crossover, especially in 3.5/PF psionics.
Ah, I had an older version. No Eldritch Blast cantrip, or just haven't finished yet?


I think the idea is really promising. I've already been working on it for quite a while now and it'll probably take quite a bit more work, but I'm excited to see how it'll work in the end. Thanks for the continued feedback.
Your welcome. I'm looking forward to going through it more thoroughly when you get it finished.

Kryx
2018-04-04, 09:34 AM
Ah, I had an older version. No Eldritch Blast cantrip, or just haven't finished yet?
If you can make sense of my ThemesTODO (https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1_ig6KbPdhBrkIp3JqgHIRR8XbBTu-O1zNKuLJXgu378/edit#gid=283615589) page you can see that I'm unsure what to do with Eldritch Blast. It does force damage, sure, but it doesn't fit the theme of "force". Eldritch, by definition, is "weird and sinister or ghostly". That fits necrotic damage or another damage type much better. In 3.5 the damage is untyped, which probably made them choose force, but force seems like the wrong damage type for Eldritch Blast.

Ugganaut
2018-04-04, 10:31 AM
If you can make sense of my ThemesTODO (https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1_ig6KbPdhBrkIp3JqgHIRR8XbBTu-O1zNKuLJXgu378/edit#gid=283615589) page you can see that I'm unsure what to do with Eldritch Blast. It does force damage, sure, but it doesn't fit the theme of "force". Eldritch, by definition, is "weird and sinister or ghostly". That fits necrotic damage or another damage type much better. In 3.5 the damage is untyped, which probably made them choose force, but force seems like the wrong damage type for Eldritch Blast.

Call it Arcane Blast/Bolt, but basically the same. Personally I think it should be d8 if it can only target one creature, maybe with a 5ft push/mana, or d6 for individual hit rolls as normal and no secondary effect, as it can stack with "on hit" effects.

Mage Hand/Minor Telekinesis should probably be a force cantrip too.

Why is Force Armor a base of 12 for 1 mana? I never found Mage Armor at 13+Dex and 8hrs to be overpowered. I can see the 4hr increment is needed or you could eventually make it last 48hrs. The fact that mages need to use a resource to get basic armor seems harsh enough.

Force Screen is nice. At first glance Shield seemed a bit underpowered for the cost, but if it stacks with Armor and Screen, it feels really good. Any reason the iconic "Absorbs Magic Missile" isn't there, even as an augment option?

Force Barrier, same comment as Stoneskin, an augment for magic b/p/s would be nice.

Sorry I'm commenting before reading the whole thing, it's easier to keep track of thoughts :)

Kryx
2018-04-04, 11:18 AM
Call it Arcane Blast/Bolt, but basically the same. Personally I think it should be d8 if it can only target one creature, maybe with a 5ft push/mana, or d6 for individual hit rolls as normal and no secondary effect, as it can stack with "on hit" effects.
That's a different spell though, and not the same thing as Eldritch Blast. I'm unsure what to do about "generic force damage" that some 3.5/PF psionics has, but just applying generic damage isn't so interesting compared to frost or acid's themes.
http://dnd.arkalseif.info/classes/warlock/index.html shows the flavor of Eldritch Blast: "A warlock attacks his foes with eldritch power, using baleful magical energy to deal damage and sometimes impart other debilitating effects."

If we're trying to capture Eldritch Blast then we should do that.


Mage Hand/Minor Telekinesis should probably be a force cantrip too.
Force and Telekinesis will be different themes I believe. There are quite a number of spells for each to stand on their own.


Why is Force Armor a base of 12 for 1 mana? I never found Mage Armor at 13+Dex and 8hrs to be overpowered. I can see the 4hr increment is needed or you could eventually make it last 48hrs. The fact that mages need to use a resource to get basic armor seems harsh enough.

Rogue's start with 11 + dex at level 1. They will generally have 14 AC at level 1.
Lets compare Light armor on a Rogue and Force Armor on a Wizard to see why 13 + dex is far too much (using standard 4/8 ASIs from RAW, though that assumes +2 dex on each):
Level 1:
Rogue: 11+3 = 14 AC
RAW Mage Armor: 13+2-3 = 15-16 AC
Force Armor: 12+2-3 = 14-15 AC

Level 2-3:
Rogue: 12+3 = 15 AC
RAW Mage Armor: 13+2-3 = 15-16 AC
Force Armor: 12+2-3 = 14-15 AC

Level 4:
Rogue: 12+4 = 16 AC
RAW Mage Armor: 13+2-3 = 15-16 AC
Force Armor: 13+2-3 = 15-16 AC (augmented)

Level 8:
Rogue: 12+5 = 17 AC
RAW Mage Armor: 13+2-3 = 15-16 AC
Force Armor: 13+2-3 = 15-16 AC (augmented)

So the Rogue has worse AC than a Wizard until it can buy studded leather and improve its dexterity, the second at a substantial cost. The Wizard also has a myriad of defensive spells like Shield, Mirror Image, etc. The rogue, and other dex classes, have some, but it's not comparable.


Force Screen is nice.
Same mechanics as Shield of Faith


At first glance Shield seemed a bit underpowered for the cost, but if it stacks with Armor and Screen, it feels really good. Any reason the iconic "Absorbs Magic Missile" isn't there, even as an augment option?
Reactions, by nature, break action economy and need to be limited in their application. Shield, by RAW, providing +5 AC as a reaction is insanely overpowered. That allows me to block ~50% more damage. It's insane.

Compare it to a spell like Shield of Faith which also somewhat breaks the action economy (bonus action), and grants a +2 AC. Sure, it lasts for a while, but a caster would have to precast it (reducing their effectiveness as they can't cast a spell on the same turn). Additionally a caster isn't going to be hit all the time, only every once in a while so the investment isn't needed like it is on a melee character.

1+mana is +2 AC as a 1 mana spell. +2 AC is a substantial difference. It's not just "10%" more defensive, but actually around 19-20% more defensive. It should allow a Wizard to say no to a DM, but not as often as RAW shield does.


Sorry I'm commenting before reading the whole thing, it's easier to keep track of thoughts :)
Totally fine - keep them coming! This on the fly method is easier for me to respond to.

Ugganaut
2018-04-04, 11:50 AM
Not that interested in capturing the flavor of Eldritch Blast, more its effects as a force cantrip. If Eldritch Blast is supposed to be a warlock feature, then that's what it should be, a feature in that class, not available to others. But a force attack cantrip is needed imo.
Force has never really had the same flavor impact as fire/frost/acid. Those types have unique secondary effects, like ongoing damage, or hindering movement. Force is more generic, it slams things, its hard to resist, and tends to move things. That's been my impression anyway.
That's also why I always saw force and telekinesis as the same theme, although it might be good to separate them if there are to many spells. Force is more brute force(slams, barriers etc), and Telekinesis is more controlled manipulation(crush, move etc).

I agree 5e Shield is too strong, and like your version as it stacks with the others in that theme well.

Rogues prioritize Dex first. Casters usually have to choose or split between Dex and Con(more than rogue due to Concentration) for their secondary. As you have in your example, rogues catch up very quickly. Getting the best armor for a rogue(studded) has never been much of an issue in any game I've played. Yes, at 1st level the mage might beat them by 1-2, but that doesn't seem like a bad thing, and it cost a mage a resource that is very limited at that level. Cash becomes less of an issue as you gain levels, and is a once off purchase. In your example, the mage has to spend 2 mana for that armor at least once each day. That's quite significant. 1 is bad enough. Most people I know would dip 1 level in another class, to get either armor prof, or Unarmored Defense of some sort to save themselves that 2 mana. Especially in your new system, 2 mana can do a lot of extra damage/stuff.

Kryx
2018-04-04, 12:47 PM
Not that interested in capturing the flavor of Eldritch Blast, more its effects as a force cantrip. If Eldritch Blast is supposed to be a warlock feature, then that's what it should be, a feature in that class, not available to others.
Then you are not interested in Eldritch Blast. Eldritch Blast, as stated above, is a spell that "[uses] baleful magical energy to deal damage and sometimes impart other debilitating effects."
Baleful is not force damage. Eldritch Blast doesn't need to be a warlock feature anymore than the myriad of wizard themed spells need to be wizard features. But the flavor does need to match the mechanics.


But a force attack cantrip is needed imo.

Force has never really had the same flavor impact as fire/frost/acid. Those types have unique secondary effects, like ongoing damage, or hindering movement. Force is more generic, it slams things, its hard to resist, and tends to move things. That's been my impression anyway.
I'm not fully convinced of this. Force is a nebulous catch-all term in 5e. What is force damage? If force damage is a shockwave explosion then we have thunder damage to cover that.


That's also why I always saw force and telekinesis as the same theme, although it might be good to separate them if there are to many spells. Force is more brute force(slams, barriers etc), and Telekinesis is more controlled manipulation(crush, move etc).
Telekinetic force is quite different from force damage. Telekinetic force is matter being compressed or thrown (where it crosses into bludgeoning). Force is Magic Missile - think of arcane darts from Dark Souls. They are very very different damage types. 5e abuses "force" as a catch-all. The way you describe force fits with bludgeoning damage.


I agree 5e Shield is too strong, and like your version as it stacks with the others in that theme well.
The same mechanics exist on Air, Earth, and Water shields. I'll take a second look, but it'd probably either be 1+mana or 2+mana.


Rogues prioritize Dex first. Casters usually have to choose or split between Dex and Con(more than rogue due to Concentration) for their secondary. As you have in your example, rogues catch up very quickly. Getting the best armor for a rogue(studded) has never been much of an issue in any game I've played. Yes, at 1st level the mage might beat them by 1-2, but that doesn't seem like a bad thing, and it cost a mage a resource that is very limited at that level. Cash becomes less of an issue as you gain levels, and is a once off purchase. In your example, the mage has to spend 2 mana for that armor at least once each day. That's quite significant. 1 is bad enough. Most people I know would dip 1 level in another class, to get either armor prof, or Unarmored Defense of some sort to save themselves that 2 mana. Especially in your new system, 2 mana can do a lot of extra damage/stuff.
In old editions this wasn't a problem for seveal reasons:

Rogues started with +4 dex, giving them +6 AC while Wizards generally had +2 dex +4 from mage armor for +6
The dex of Rogues scaled from +4 while the Wizard's spells scaled up their mage armor

Now in 5e we have quite a disparity between a low level rogue and a low level wizard. 14 vs 15-16 AC is emphatically wrong. "Very quickly" is a false narrative as the vast majority of the game is played at low levels (below 7). The rogue doesn't catch up until level 4.

The problem here is that the Wizard starts too high and has no AC scaling while the armor wearers do. A rogue gets more dex and a fighter buys better armor. A wizard will almost always be stuck with their same AC their whole career. So the solution here is to reduce the AC which is way too high to start and let it scale like all spells do.
Also keep in mind that a Wizard has equivalent AC to a heavy armor class at level 1 if they have +3 dex (they probably should).

Barbarian has 12+con=15 as its armor system and slowly scale.
Bard scales like a rogue or fighter
Cleric/Fighter/Paladin will have 16 AC or 13+3.
Druid will be the same as a mage (Barkskin replaced with mage armor equivalent)
Monk has 10+dex+wis= 15-16 and scale decently
Ranger will have 13+3=16 and scale to 15+3
Sorcerer will have 13+dex (max 4)
Occultist will scale like a rogue

After typing the above I've remembered that I redid the armor in my system to correct this problem. 13+dex (max 4) on force armor solves the problem when using that system. I'll make that change.

Kryx
2018-04-04, 02:33 PM
Changelog to Thematic spells:

General

All damage scaling adjusted down to aim for about 85 at 6 mana. See Spell Themes Balance (https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1_ig6KbPdhBrkIp3JqgHIRR8XbBTu-O1zNKuLJXgu378/edit#gid=1382098460). There are still a few outliers that I need to fix, but will work on those later.

Corrosion

Acid fog now does half damage at the end of the creature's turn

Earth

Added Augment to Stoneskin to work against magical b/p/s weapons

Force

Added Augment to Force Barrier to work against magical b/p/s weapons

Frost

Ice Shield renamed Ice Block
Winterís Bite converted to pure damage and effect (no AC)

Light

Continual Flame moved to 1 mana

Poison

Cloudkill now applies the Poisoned condition

Shadow

Arms of Hadar renamed Shadow Tendrils
Hunger of Hadar under Darkness renamed to Hungering Darkness
Cloak of Shadows renamed to Shadow Cloak and it is an AC boost now
Shadowy Reprisal added as the damage reaction and push/pull
Umbral Weapon reworked to lessen light around it and blind when it is expended

Ugganaut
2018-04-04, 07:05 PM
Then you are not interested in Eldritch Blast. Eldritch Blast, as stated above, is a spell that "[uses] baleful magical energy to deal damage and sometimes impart other debilitating effects."
Baleful is not force damage. Eldritch Blast doesn't need to be a warlock feature anymore than the myriad of wizard themed spells need to be wizard features. But the flavor does need to match the mechanics.
True, Eldritch Blast isn't what I'm interested in, its the spells effect. I agree an Eldritch Blast themed spell doesn't need to limited to warlock, and the mechanics of the spell as its written, should be changed to fit the flavor you mentioned.



I'm not fully convinced of this. Force is a nebulous catch-all term in 5e. What is force damage? If force damage is a shockwave explosion then we have thunder damage to cover that.
Telekinetic force is quite different from force damage. Telekinetic force is matter being compressed or thrown (where it crosses into bludgeoning). Force is Magic Missile - think of arcane darts from Dark Souls. They are very very different damage types. 5e abuses "force" as a catch-all. The way you describe force fits with bludgeoning damage.
Maybe its just the way I visualize force damage, and the properties it had in previous editions. Magic force, I saw as arcane energy made solid. It was a type of bludgeoning. Defensively, when used to create barriers, it was incredibly strong(Force Cage). I could be remembering this wrong. Offensively, it like bludgeoning damage(it didn't burn, singe, freeze etc), but it had the additional property of bypassing certain defenses. It was magical for starters, but the main thing I remember from previous editions(maybe 2nd?), was it didn't do half damage to incorporeal creatures(not sure when that changed). So while fire burned, cold froze etc, the property of force was it was hard to stop unless using your own force protection(Shield spell), and hard to penetrate. If magic missiles does force damage, then that damage type exists, and why not make a cantrip using that same damage type. Otherwise magic missiles would do bludgeoning, and that has implications for things that have resistance against bludgeoning, removing its "hard to stop" property.
(Criminally, I haven't played Dark Souls)
Thunder damage is sound/vibration. My DM hates that thunder is a damage type, but its not the same as force damage, and has the same implications if you made it bludgeoning.


The same mechanics exist on Air, Earth, and Water shields. I'll take a second look, but it'd probably either be 1+mana or 2+mana.
Sorry if it sounds like I've been criticizing your version of Shield. I was saying at first glance it seemed weak, but changed my mind as it stacks so well with other force spells. Either 1+mana or 2+mana I think would be fine.
Edit: Actually considering the resource cost, I think +2AC per mana is more appropriate. I understand why they made it +5 now. Yes its incredibly powerful, but it protects you for 1 round, then that resource is gone. In your themed version, you're sacrificing major damage output for that brief protection, it should be significant.


[SIZE=1][S]The problem here is that the Wizard starts too high and has no AC scaling while the armor wearers do. A rogue gets more dex and a fighter buys better armor. A wizard will almost always be stuck with their same AC their whole career. So the solution here is to reduce the AC which is way too high to start and let it scale like all spells do.
Also keep in mind that a Wizard has equivalent AC to a heavy armor class at level 1 if they have +3 dex (they probably should).

After typing the above I've remembered that I redid the armor in my system to correct this problem. 13+dex (max 4) on force armor solves the problem when using that system. I'll make that change.
In your system, a 1st level Rogue can get starting equipment of leather armor(12+Dex), a rapier/shortsword/shortbow/daggers. Assuming a Str 10/Dex 16, it has AC 15, does 1d8+3 damage on a hit in melee, 1d6+3 using a shortbow, and if it has advantage, +1d6 it can use 1/turn.
A wizard(Str 10, Dex 16) starting equipment is no armor(10+Dex) AC 13 and a staff, doing 1d8+0, or something like a dagger for 1d4+3. Lets say it has a damage only cantrip like Firebolt, doing 1d8(no mod) damage as well. It has 1 mana(or 2 mana in your current version, but the equivalent is one 1st level spell) per short rest.

They start their adventuring day, and the wizard wants better protection, so casts Force Armor/Mage Armor. That's it. He's tapped out until he uses one of his two short rests for the day, and it now only lasts 4hrs, so he'll need to recast it before the days out. The rogue is still at full strength with his AC 15, higher normal damage, significantly higher with sneak attack.
Even in RAW, the Rogues 11+3 AC wearing leather armor is constant, costing no resources - he's always at full strength. A wizard in RAW has to use 1/3 his daily resources for mage armor. In your short rest system, its all of his first short rest resources, but still 1/3 his daily resources(using 2 short rests). In your theme spell version, its more like 2/3 his daily resources for the same 8hrs of armor.

Limiting Force armor to 13+Dex (Max 4) still feels unnecessary for armor that costs you a resource every day. Armor wearers get it for free, forever. If a wizard uses all their resources, it should beat the rogue, because their damage will be less compared to the rogue, or any other armor wearer. Even a fighter is doing 1d8+3. A wizard can only do more than its 1d8 cantrip if it has a resource to use at level 1. It also has d6 HP, but shouldn't be getting hit as much as you said.

Considering that use of resource, I personally think 13+Dex for 8hrs is appropriate for 1 mana. Augment 1 mana to make it 24hrs. The AC might not scale up like others, but the percentage cost to your resources gets less as you gain levels, and that is the scaling up/improving part, because it frees up the option to increase it using Force Screen or Shield, but still at significant cost of resources/damage output.

I hope I explained that ok.

Kryx
2018-04-05, 02:49 AM
Force damage isn't being removed. I'm talking about your earlier desire that telekinetic damage spells are force damage and in the force theme.
Force damage will remain for spells like magic missile and similar spells, but that is not the same theme as kinetic damage.

https://pre00.deviantart.net/20f8/th/pre/i/2017/192/c/2/magic_missile_by_lizardsins-dbfyn8n.png
That damage will exist. I'll probably take some motivation from Dark Souls to use some of their force spells. A cantrip could exist, possibly even convert magic missile to a cantrip (I've considered it a few times now).



Limiting Force armor to 13+Dex (Max 4) still feels unnecessary for armor that costs you a resource every day.
Everything costs. A Barbarian/Monk/Sorcerer/Fighter dip for armor from a class feature or physical armor also has a cost. Spells have a cost as well - that is D&D.

In the current armor system there is a hierarchy of Plate at 18 being the best and everything else at some point below. 13+4 matches that system (see the armor table of my houserules for other armors).

The scaling isn't perfect across classes, but everything but the monk follows that system I believe. I'll make a table showing that system so the scaling is visible and then we can follow up on where Force Armor fits in that system.

Ugganaut
2018-04-05, 03:19 AM
Force damage isn't being removed. I'm talking about your earlier desire that telekinetic damage spells are force damage and in the force theme.
Force damage will remain for spells like magic missile and similar spells, but that is not the same theme as kinetic damage.
That damage will exist. I'll probably take some motivation from Dark Souls to use some of their force spells. A cantrip could exist, possibly even convert magic missile to a cantrip (I've considered it a few times now).
Ah ok, yes I can see telekinetic damage is different to force. Basically I'm after a force cantrip :)
Magic Missile as a cantrip. Interesting. Only reason I'd be against it, is cantrips never do half damage on a miss/failed save, and Magic Missile has always been auto-hit, which does less damage than its half damage counterparts. It would feel stronger than other options, but I do like the idea just because its iconic for mages :)


Everything costs. A Barbarian/Monk/Sorcerer/Fighter dip for armor from a class feature or physical armor also has a cost. Spells have a cost as well - that is D&D.
Costs also vary, with all your examples being a once off, and wizards requiring ongoing, which has a massive effect at level 1, using 1/3 normally, or 2/3 in the themed version every day.


In the current armor system there is a hierarchy of Plate at 18 being the best and everything else at some point below. 13+4 matches that system (see the armor table of my houserules for other armors).
The scaling isn't perfect across classes, but everything but the monk follows that system I believe. I'll make a table showing that system so the scaling is visible and then we can follow up on where Force Armor fits in that system.
The point I failed to make, is the scaling for wizards is not in the AC itself, but in the cost to resources. Personally I'd rather see Force Armor as a cantrip, then you could scale it to fit in with the other classes. I'd never considered that with a short rest mana system(either themed or the old) - until after your first short rest, you have no spells to get AC 15. Not only does it seem unfair, but its certainly less fun to play. If you don't cast it, so you have 1 spell each short rest to do anything else, you have AC 12, and 6+Con HP. No other class seems so weak.

Kryx
2018-04-05, 03:33 AM
Costs also vary, with all your examples being a once off, and wizards requiring ongoing, which has a massive effect at level 1, using 1/3 normally, or 2/3 in the themed version every day.

The point I failed to make, is the scaling for wizards is not in the AC itself, but in the cost to resources. Personally I'd rather see Force Armor as a cantrip, then you could scale it to fit in with the other classes. I'd never considered that with a short rest mana system(either themed or the old) - until after your first short rest, you have no spells to get AC 15. Not only does it seem unfair, but its certainly less fun to play. If you don't cast it, so you have 1 spell each short rest to do anything else, you have AC 12, and 6+Con HP. No other class seems so weak.
The approach you're talking about (removing all cost for armor for wizard) is not a productive approach. It's equivalent of giving the Wizard armor proficiency. The Wizard doesn't have armor proficiency and its defenses come at a cost because the Wizard has historically has benefits in other places. That won't change as the Wizard will have the ability to swap out spells on a long rest.
Giving the Wizard the benefits of its class while also providing standard AC makes it the premiere choice for casters - a significant step above other options. Wizard defenses should always come at a cost.

Their armor should match the armor system and the cost should be a fair cost, but a cantrip is not a fair cost at all.

Ugganaut
2018-04-05, 04:46 AM
Still costs you a cantrip slot, but maybe something in the middle. I just think the themed cost is to high.
5e Warlocks at least get the option to take it as an Invocation. Maybe a talent option?

I don't play wizards in 5e, they are just to weak early on. Worst HP, AC, and their very costly spellbook is vulnerable to theft or damage. They always have been like that, but now there are more caster options that don't have as many weaknesses imo. The mage armor tax is just a saw point for me I guess, even more so with the short rest mana. Not being able to cast another spell until you use one of two short rests is boring. Maybe it's fine, just not the class for me :smallsmile:

Kryx
2018-04-05, 05:45 AM
5e Warlocks at least get the option to take it as an Invocation. Maybe a talent option?
Armor of Shadows as a talent in my system sounds like a good option.


I don't play wizards in 5e, they are just to weak early on. Worst HP, AC, and their very costly spellbook is vulnerable to theft or damage. They always have been like that, but now there are more caster options that don't have as many weaknesses imo. The mage armor tax is just a saw point for me I guess, even more so with the short rest mana. Not being able to cast another spell until you use one of two short rests is boring. Maybe it's fine, just not the class for me :smallsmile:
The cost isn't more for short rest mana - the spell lasts just as long and the mana is just divided by 3 so it's not more costly. Other classes don't have many resources in the short rest system either. If a Wizard is out of mana from Force Armor then a Sorcerer will be out of mana after 1 cast of burning hands.

It does sound like it's not the right class for you. It isn't for me either - I much prefer the Sorcerer or Psion due to the spellbook. But many prefer the spellbook and the mechanics that come with it.

Ugganaut
2018-04-05, 07:14 AM
Armor of Shadows as a talent in my system sounds like a good option.
Agreed, I think that would be a solid option.



The cost isn't more for short rest mana - the spell lasts just as long and the mana is just divided by 3 so it's not more costly. Other classes don't have many resources in the short rest system either. If a Wizard is out of mana from Force Armor then a Sorcerer will be out of mana after 1 cast of burning hands.
It felt like it cost more, because with one casting, it lasts 4hrs instead of 8hrs. So you'd have to cast twice a day at least.


It does sound like it's not the right class for you. It isn't for me either - I much prefer the Sorcerer or Psion due to the spellbook. But many prefer the spellbook and the mechanics that come with it.
Agreed, was just talking with K, and I was saying it boils down to spellbooks, I hate them. Wizards main pro is supposed to be versatility, but its more "versatility with notice". Prepared and Known spells are about the same number, and some spells you'd never choose unless you knew in advance you'd need it. But some people do like the spellbook stereotype. I wish for their sake it didn't feel so weak at lower levels. At least quicken cantrip feature helps them out in your system.

Kryx
2018-04-05, 10:13 AM
It felt like it cost more, because with one casting, it lasts 4hrs instead of 8hrs. So you'd have to cast twice a day at least.
I hadn't considered that when I converted the duration. I'll look at extending that.


Agreed, was just talking with K, and I was saying it boils down to spellbooks, I hate them. Wizards main pro is supposed to be versatility, but its more "versatility with notice". Prepared and Known spells are about the same number, and some spells you'd never choose unless you knew in advance you'd need it. But some people do like the spellbook stereotype. I wish for their sake it didn't feel so weak at lower levels. At least quicken cantrip feature helps them out in your system.
Agreed about "versatility with notice". I've always found that too limiting to enjoy. I think I'll add an option to change a few spells on a short rest and more on a long rest (not all).

I don't think a Wizard is weak at lower levels. It's quite strong even then with things like mana recovery on a short rest. Wizard will be gutted by the loss of schools though, so I'll have to work out their subclasses.

Ugganaut
2018-04-05, 11:18 AM
Was talking with K about this:
"Whenever a caster learns a new spell the spell must be from a theme they already know.
Alternatively, a caster can forgo learning a new spell to learn a new theme and one cantrip of their choice from any theme they know."

I'm assuming a Sorcerer might start with 1(related to Origin), maybe 2. Wizard similar, 1 plus their specialization. They could easily use their spell known going up a level to get access to a new theme, because they can learn new spells outside of that, by buying or finding them. For Sorcerer, that choice is much harder, giving up a known spell for access to another theme.
Only issue there, is wizards would end up with a lot of cantrips. Not sure thats a bad thing, but its more than usual.
Interested to see how the classes fit into the new magic system. Balancing spells known with themes known might be challenging. To few themes for any class, and it can get a bit monotonous.

I think a wizard able to change even 1 spell during a short rest, and Int number during a long would be enough. You come to the top of a massive cliff, you take a 5min rest to replace Magic Missile with Feather Fall and off you go. Allows you to adapt to a situation more easily, highlighting the wizards strength over a sorcerer.

Kryx
2018-04-05, 11:24 AM
Was talking with K about this:
"Whenever a caster learns a new spell the spell must be from a theme they already know.
Alternatively, a caster can forgo learning a new spell to learn a new theme and one cantrip of their choice from any theme they know."

I'm assuming a Sorcerer might start with 1(related to Origin), maybe 2. Wizard similar, 1 plus their specialization. They could easily use their spell known going up a level to get access to a new theme, because they can learn new spells outside of that, by buying or finding them. For Sorcerer, that choice is much harder, giving up a known spell for access to another theme.
Only issue there, is wizards would end up with a lot of cantrips. Not sure thats a bad thing, but its more than usual.
Interested to see how the classes fit into the new magic system. Balancing spells known with themes known might be challenging. To few themes for any class, and it can get a bit monotonous.
All classes will have spells known, including the Mage, Acolyte, and Naturalist.

The Naturalist will swap completely and will not have any special abilities - at least that's my plan.
The Acolyte, due to their divine connection, will be able to change a set amount of spells known on rests (that is effectively what prepared spells are, but this way is far simpler).
The Mage, due to their spellbook, will be able to change a set amount of spells known on rests. Their spellbook will add new spells on level and when they buy them, but they will still know the exact same amount of spells known as a Sorcerer, but will be able to change X amount on each rest. To swap to a new spell the spell must be of a theme they know. If they don't know the theme then they'll have to swap multiple spells. It should all work out in that regard.



I think a wizard able to change even 1 spell during a short rest, and Int number during a long would be enough. You come to the top of a massive cliff, you take a 5min rest to replace Magic Missile with Feather Fall and off you go. Allows you to adapt to a situation more easily, highlighting the wizards strength over a sorcerer.
Agreed that those numbers are similar to the level I'm looking at. 1 or half prof per short rest and proficiency bonus per long rest.

Kryx
2018-04-05, 05:22 PM
Changelog to Thematic spells:

General

Minor adjustments to some damage spells

Frost

Added Blizzard

Earth

Rock Shield renamed Earthen Bulwark

Force

Added a myriad of force spells flavored on them always hitting like Magic Missile and based on some Dark Souls spells. Magic Beam is a cantrip, Magic Hail and Magic Spear using 2 mana, and Homing Magic Motes using 3 mana
Force Armor renamed Magic Armor. I made a preliminary Armor Comparison spreadsheet (https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1pABmIOIOiRfV2iszb6yqc6YZ3rUBz3UPs6WPYYmKcq4/edit#gid=1772384662) where 13+4 fits the current system.
Force Screen renamed Shield of Magic
Force Sword renamed Magic Sword
Shield renamed Magic Barrier
Magic Weapon moved from Arcane

Life

Restored Healing Word

Storm

Reworked Storm of Vengeance a bit.


I'm done with Undeath besides summoning spells. Summoning spells are calculated as incredibly strong via my spreadsheet so I spent some time tweaking some values to get the values a bit more accurate, but the values are still high. I'll need to map out several summoning spells before I can tackle any themes with summons in them.

Ugganaut
2018-04-05, 07:02 PM
Not sure what you have against the word Force :)
Personally I prefer Shield due to its iconic nature, and Force Screen. The version I just refreshed has two spells called Magic Barrier, Shield and the Stoneskin type one.

I'm against any cantrip doing half damage on a save, or just auto-damage.
At top tier, Magic Beam does 4d6. Frostbite does 4d8+Disadvantage, save for nothing. You'd want to desperately want to impose disadvantage to risk that auto-damage. If you're fighting some solo monster, with good saves and high AC, you'd never consider using anything else.

But if you are going to use Magic Beam, why not just make Magic Missile a cantrip, 1/tier? At top tier, wizards could pump out 8 per round with quicken cantrip.

Kryx
2018-04-06, 05:30 AM
Not sure what you have against the word Force :)
Personally I prefer Shield due to its iconic nature, and Force Screen. The version I just refreshed has two spells called Magic Barrier, Shield and the Stoneskin type one.
Names should match their flavor. There are two types of shield currently: Shield of Faith/Shield of Magic: +2 ac for a while. Gale Cloak, Earthen Bulwark, Magic Barrier, Ice Armor, Shadow Cloak, and Wave Shield. Those are reactions that give some AC. Their names should be consistent so "Shield of Faith" being different from "Shield" doesn't work so well when the theme with "Shield" also has a similar feature to "Shield of Faith".


I'm against any cantrip doing half damage on a save, or just auto-damage.
At top tier, Magic Beam does 4d6. Frostbite does 4d8+Disadvantage, save for nothing. You'd want to desperately want to impose disadvantage to risk that auto-damage. If you're fighting some solo monster, with good saves and high AC, you'd never consider using anything else.
I appreciate the feedback, but your feedback sometimes misses the math of the issue and goes off gut feeling.

Corrosive Touch will do 5.5*.65=3.575. It can crit so 3.575*1.05 = 3.9375, but at a range of touch so 3.9375*.9 = 3.54
Fire Bolt will do 4.5*.65=2.925. It can crit so 2.925*1.05 = 3.07125. It has a range of 120 feet. so 3.07125*1.1 = 3.38
Frostbite will do 4.5*.55=2.475, but when it hits it also provides disadvantage which is a modifier of .2635. 2.475*1.2635 = 3.13
Magic Beam will do 3.5 damage.

You can see more math on the Cantrips tab of the Spell Themes Balance spreadsheet (https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1_ig6KbPdhBrkIp3JqgHIRR8XbBTu-O1zNKuLJXgu378/edit#gid=1363053555). Magic Beam is slightly on the high side for cantrips, but it's within the tolerance for variance that I've created. I'll try for more alignment in the damage numbers as I get further in the project, but it's quite ok right now.


But if you are going to use Magic Beam, why not just make Magic Missile a cantrip, 1/tier? At top tier, wizards could pump out 8 per round with quicken cantrip.
The two spells are quite different flavors and mechanics. Magic Beam is 1 beam while Magic Missile is multiple. Magic Beam is 1 creature while Magic Missile can be many. It's like comparing Fire Bolt and Scorching Ray: They are quite different spells.


At top tier, wizards could pump out 8 per round with quicken cantrip.
Quicken Cantrip will likely be changed to allow a normal spell, but not 2x cantrips anymore. This have several benefits, one of which is that low mana spells still are viable options.



I've questioned if these spells fit in the Force theme and I'm still unsure. Perhaps they belong better with spells like Detect Magic, Counterspell, Dispel Magic, Antimagic field, etc as all of these spells are dealing with the raw forces of magic. That's likely the approach I'll take.

Ugganaut
2018-04-06, 06:44 AM
Names should match their flavor. There are two types of shield currently: Shield of Faith/Shield of Magic: +2 ac for a while. Gale Cloak, Earthen Bulwark, Magic Barrier, Ice Armor, Shadow Cloak, and Wave Shield. Those are reactions that give some AC. Their names should be consistent so "Shield of Faith" being different from "Shield" doesn't work so well when the theme with "Shield" also has a similar feature to "Shield of Faith".
I just thought if you're making up the names of these spells, maybe leave the iconic ones as they are.


I appreciate the feedback, but your feedback sometimes misses the math of the issue and goes off gut feeling.
True. Often, not sometimes :P I've tried looking at your spreadsheets, makes no sense to me. I didn't understand how 4d6 auto-damage(Magic Beam) was roughly equivalent to 4d8 damage(Firebolt).
"Fire Bolt will do 4.5*.65=2.925. It can crit so 2.925*1.05 = 3.07125. It has a range of 120 feet. so 3.07125*1.1 = 3.38"
It looks like you've assigned value to range, which makes sense, but how you come up with numbers like that is baffling to me. Sorry you have to deal with my mathematic ineptitude :)
The other issue I was referring to was design. There are a total of zero cantrips in official material that have auto-damage or half damage. I don't know why they avoided them, but I assume there is some reason.


The two spells are quite different flavors and mechanics. Magic Beam is 1 beam while Magic Missile is multiple. Magic Beam is 1 creature while Magic Missile can be many. It's like comparing Fire Bolt and Scorching Ray: They are quite different spells.
True.

Kryx
2018-04-06, 07:46 AM
I just thought if you're making up the names of these spells, maybe leave the iconic ones as they are.
I was unaware that Shield was iconic, but looking at http://pandaria.rpgworlds.info/cant/rules/adnd_spells.htm#Shield it seems that you're right. I'll change it back.


True. Often, not sometimes :P I've tried looking at your spreadsheets, makes no sense to me. I didn't understand how 4d6 auto-damage(Magic Beam) was roughly equivalent to 4d8 damage(Firebolt).
"Fire Bolt will do 4.5*.65=2.925. It can crit so 2.925*1.05 = 3.07125. It has a range of 120 feet. so 3.07125*1.1 = 3.38"
It looks like you've assigned value to range, which makes sense, but how you come up with numbers like that is baffling to me. Sorry you have to deal with my mathematic ineptitude :)
The raw damage values are not equivalent.
Fire Bolt does 4.5 damage with a 65% chance. 4.5*.65=2.925. It can crit so 2.925*1.05 = 3.07125
Magic Beam does 3.5

Without any further modifiers Magic Beam is better than Fire Bolt. But you also have to consider the other elements of the cantrip in terms of balance. Range, for example, helps Fire Bolt out as 120 range is quite significant. I've placed that modifier as improving the damage by 10%, so 3.38 damage vs Magic Beam's 3.5. It's pretty close. The range modifier is something I've chosen based off feel. 10% is equivalent of "1/10 rounds I couldn't get in range for a Magic Beam, but I could get in range for a Fire Bolt." I expect the value is higher than that, but it's hard to say.
We also have to consider that a creature may have low AC. A Fire Bolt vs a Zombie for example would be about 4 damage on average. A Fire Bolt vs a plate+shield would be less. It's hard to math out all scenarios, but the goal is for each cantrip/spell to at least have a niche where it is the best choice.


The other issue I was referring to was design. There are a total of zero cantrips in official material that have auto-damage or half damage. I don't know why they avoided them, but I assume there is some reason.
Cantrips can do half damage on a save from the evocation Wizard subclass. I don't think it's something we should necessarily avoid. If so then I'd say that this raw magic damage type shouldn't have a cantrip.

Ugganaut
2018-04-06, 08:22 AM
A bolt made of energy and hurled doesn't fit the Force theme?

Wow that link, that's some old stuff there :)

Kryx
2018-04-06, 09:00 AM
A bolt made of energy and hurled doesn't fit the Force theme?
Looks like my idea of force is wrong:

Force is pure magical energy focused into a damaging form. Most effects that deal force damage are spells, including magic missile and spiritual weapon.
See https://rpg.stackexchange.com/questions/92990/is-there-a-difference-between-thunder-force-and-bludgeoning-damage for more details.

I'll need to read a bit more to decide where the divide (if any) is between Force and Arcane.

Ugganaut
2018-04-06, 09:59 PM
Interesting. Never really thought about the differences like that.

Kryx
2018-04-07, 04:04 AM
Changelog to Thematic spells:

Alteration

Added the Alteration theme

Divination

Added the Divination theme

Divine

Spiritual Weapon changed to Radiant/Necrotic

Force

Added a description matching that on PHB 197 to clarify Force spells.
Renamed spells: Force Beam, Mage Armor, Force Barrier, Shield, Force Spear, Magic Weapon, Force Hand, Homing Motes, Second Skin

Time

Past Impressions moved to Divination

Kryx
2018-04-07, 05:49 AM
Changelog to Thematic spells:

Beast

Added Locate Animals
Added Awaken Beast

Divine

Destructive Wave added

Nature

Added the Nature theme

Plants

Added the Plants theme (TODO for animate plants)

Telekinesis

Added the Telekinesis theme

Undeath

Added the Undeath theme (TODO for animate dead / create undead / danse macabre)


TODO: Consider merging Animal Companion / Conjure Animals / Animate Beast. Temporary version (Conjure Animals) and long term version (Animal Companion/Animate Beast). Do the same for Plants.

Kryx
2018-04-08, 05:17 PM
Changelog to Thematic spells:

General

Added Immunity to "Protection from ___" spells as an augment option
Adjusted some cantrips

Alteration

Added metabolism spells: Metabolic Recovery, Vigor, Sustenance, Metabolic Adaptation, and Metabolic Regeneration

Arcane

Added Find Familiar
Added Magic Circle
Private Sanctum moved to Protection

Chaos

Added the Chaos theme

Charm

Added the Charm theme

Divination

Added Metafaculty

Divine

Added Ceremony
Find Steed

Ectoplasm

Added the Ectoplasm theme

Fate

Added the Fate theme

Illusion

Added Phantom Steed
Added Simulacrum

Nature

Added Snare

Planes

Added the Planes theme

Protection

Added the Protection theme


Still TODO:

Add Mind theme (split into 2 if possible)
Calculate summon spells
List "Unthemed spells" as their own theme
Add spells inspired by 5e mystic disciplines
Cleanup
Modify classes and subclasses

Ugganaut
2018-04-16, 01:06 AM
How's the project going?
Have you started on the classes using the new theme spells?

Kryx
2018-04-16, 01:56 AM
This project is a lot of work. Who knew rewriting large parts of D&D from the ground up would be time consuming.. :P

All themes are done.
I reworked my spell balance spreadsheet to more accurately calculate value. That has helped quite a bit.
Summoning spells have been refined, but I recently changed one of their modifiers so I need to recalculate them all.
I started on classes this weekend. It's going quite well, though it's lots of work.
I considered refactoring how subclasses are done, but I'm going to focus on finishing with the subclasses that I have now and then potentially changing the structure or adding on.

Ugganaut
2018-04-16, 03:05 AM
Was talking with K about it, and figured you would have to rewrite almost every class to adapt/balance it all out. I don't know how you have the patience :smallsmile:

Small question, are you adding Sword Burst, Greenflame Blade etc cantrips?

Looking forward to seeing the class stuff.

Kryx
2018-04-16, 03:16 AM
Small question, are you adding Sword Burst, Greenflame Blade etc cantrips?
Green-Flame Blade and Booming Blade will not be added (they don't exist in my current rules). They are massively out of line in terms of power and their use case is already covered by current things like Arcane Channeling or Mage's 11th level that lets them cast a spell through an attack. The same system is being expanded to all gish classes in my new version so the desired functionality will exist, just not in those forms.

Ugganaut
2018-04-16, 04:11 AM
Makes sense. How about Sword Burst in the Force theme?

Terra Reveene
2018-04-16, 04:17 AM
I spend 6 mana casting meteor swarm: Each creature I hit with a meteor takes 10d6 total damage.
Instead, I could've cast burning hands for 6 mana and dealt 18d6 damage to what is probably all of the targets I'd want to hit with meteor swarm anyways, dealing almost twice as much damage in the process.

Meteor swarm, in this case, does have the additional benefit of having a 1 mile range, but... It just doesn't seem right that it'd do less damage to a single target than burning hands would, y'know?

Are you planning on keeping or doing away with the "You can cast a spell of X mana a maximum of Y times before finishing a long rest"?
From my understanding, it serves as a great way of limiting higher level spells, allowing them to be more powerful than their lower level versions when cast at the same amount of mana. It feels like you'd be planning on doing away with that rule, given how low the numbers on 4-6 mana spells are in comparison to 1-3 mana ones (I haven't looked through everything, so I can't say for sure that ALL of the 4-6 mana spells are generally just as powerful as 1-3 mana ones when cast using the same amount of mana, but I did get that impression from skimming through the doc).


I wanted to make a joke using this quote, but I can't think of any way of leading into it, so just have it anyways:

"When I order some 6 mana meteors I expect big ones. Not the lousy baby pebbles the sky insists on delivering to me these days."
-Tim, the meteormancer

Kryx
2018-04-16, 05:42 AM
Makes sense. How about Sword Burst in the Force theme?
I currently have Sword burst grouped with Cloud of Daggers and Blade Barrier. I have them in Unthemed spells under "Blade spells". I'll likely let you choose any "Unthemed" spell if you have another.



I spend 6 mana casting meteor swarm: Each creature I hit with a meteor takes 10d6 total damage.
Instead, I could've cast burning hands for 6 mana and dealt 18d6 damage to what is probably all of the targets I'd want to hit with meteor swarm anyways, dealing almost twice as much damage in the process.

Meteor swarm, in this case, does have the additional benefit of having a 1 mile range, but... It just doesn't seem right that it'd do less damage to a single target than burning hands would, y'know?

Are you planning on keeping or doing away with the "You can cast a spell of X mana a maximum of Y times before finishing a long rest"?
From my understanding, it serves as a great way of limiting higher level spells, allowing them to be more powerful than their lower level versions when cast at the same amount of mana. It feels like you'd be planning on doing away with that rule, given how low the numbers on 4-6 mana spells are in comparison to 1-3 mana ones (I haven't looked through everything, so I can't say for sure that ALL of the 4-6 mana spells are generally just as powerful as 1-3 mana ones when cast using the same amount of mana, but I did get that impression from skimming through the doc).
6 mana spells are limited: "Spells using 6 mana are particularly taxing to cast. Once you cast a spell using 6 mana, you canít cast another spell using 6 mana until you finish a long rest." This remains primarily for non damaging spells.

Burning Hands at 6 mana is a 90 foot cone. I've just noticed that I didn't count this out perfectly, but it'd be around 212 squares. I estimate that'd be around 5 creatures. Damage to secondary targets is less valuable which equates a 90 foot cone to about 233% modifier of normal damage. Burning hands does 18d6 as you say. But that has some drawbacks like being in melee range.

Meteor Swarm has 4 Sphere aoes. Each sphere has a 35 foot radius which is 176 squares for each sphere. Sphere have a modifier of about 250%. Each sphere can be targeted individually, allowing for significantly more creatures hit for 10d6. Upon inspection I've noticed that Meteor Swarm was not taking its 4 AoEs into consideration Its current 10d6 is quite too high actually. I should probably combine Fire Storm and Meteor Swarm into one spell with multiple AoE 10s.

Every spell has their own niche. Meteor Swarm is useful for wiping out a horde of enemies really far from you. Burning Hands is useful for wiping out a few enemies really close to you. The goal of the system is that a 6 mana spell is equivalent to a 2 mana spell cast at 6th level. Meteor Swarm, by RAW, does insane amounts of damage - far beyond the DMG recommendations for 9th level spells. If I were to restore it to 40d6 then the damage value would be around 353 in comparison to the ~88 that it currently is (6 mana spell aim to do around 85 damage).

If you think 6 mana spells should be earth shattering then you could include some random "if you cast this at 6 mana, you deal X amount more damage". That, and RAW, doesn't align with the DMG guidelines for spells.

Terra Reveene
2018-04-16, 09:44 AM
If you think 6 mana spells should be earth shattering then you could include some random "if you cast this at 6 mana, you deal X amount more damage". That, and RAW, doesn't align with the DMG guidelines for spells.

I believe you if you tell me your Meteor Swarm does just as much damage as it's supposed to (or more, in this case). I'm just saying I think it's very odd for a meteor to do as little damage to any one target as it does currently (thematically speaking). When I drop a meteor on something, I expect it to take severe damage, perhaps not even being left alive.
Although I now realize that the size of each meteor is not specified, so perhaps I am in the wrong there. I was thinking more in terms of "I drop these four meteors, one in each of these spots", not "I rain down meteors in these four areas (more than one per area)".

It'd be interesting if you could choose (to a certain extent) the size of each meteor, allowing you to pick between 2, maybe 3 different modes with different damage amounts. So you could choose to drop the current pebble storm (more like fairly well sized rocks what with the 10d6 damage, but w/e) in four different areas, or choose to drop fewer but larger rocks over fewer (maybe even just one) area, or choose to drop a single big one in a very small area.

EDIT: Corrected some wording.

And to be clear: I don't like the normal PHB meteor swarm spell, I think it's far too powerful. I'm opting to change it once I get there.

Kryx
2018-04-16, 12:07 PM
https://i.imgur.com/ZiAVc8t.jpg
This is a comparison of the three spells. Burning hands is the fire, Fire storm (8 aoes) is the blue squares, and Meteor Swarm is the red spheres. You can instantly see that the area covered by meteor swarm is almost 10x as much as fire storm and ~3-4x as much as Burning Hands. That's not even taking into account the ability to spread them out.

Larger area = more creatures = more total damage. Even after accounting for damage being less valuable split across multiple creatures Meteor Swarm is off the deep end in terms of balance. It could become "Meteor" without the swarm, but then it's just a big fireball. Minute Meteors also uses meteors so I wouldn't get too caught up on this idea of giant meteors - that's not how the spell functioned in old editions either.


It'd be interesting if you could choose (to a certain extent) the size of each meteor, allowing you to pick between 2, maybe 3 different modes with different damage amounts. So you could choose to drop the current pebble storm (more like fairly well sized rocks what with the 10d6 damage, but w/e) in four different areas, or choose to drop fewer but larger rocks over fewer (maybe even just one) area, or choose to drop a single big one in a very small area.
That's not a bad idea, though fire storm should be aborbed in at that point.

EDIT: http://www.d20pfsrd.com/magic/all-spells/m/meteor-swarm/ is quite different from what it is in 5e.

Terra Reveene
2018-04-16, 01:56 PM
This is a comparison of the three spells. Burning hands is the fire, Fire storm (8 aoes) is the blue squares, and Meteor Swarm is the red spheres. You can instantly see that the area covered by meteor swarm is almost 10x as much as fire storm and ~3-4x as much as Burning Hands. That's not even taking into account the ability to spread them out.

Seems about right.

I'm not saying your damage + AoE numbers are wrong, I'm just stating that I initially thought of them to be odd; Mainly because in my mind you were summoning 4 meteors, but that just isn't the case as I came to realize upon taking a second look at the wording of the spell.

I did leave my initial comment very ambiguous, was hoping that my second comment could clear things up but I'm not sure if it did? Hope this clears things up a bit though.

Kryx
2018-04-16, 02:05 PM
Updated Thematic spells (https://drive.google.com/open?id=1IcpftMibmjr_3mGHkioneZKx3kV8vNxw).

Still need to throw the unthemed ones on there and recalculate all the summoned creatures.

I'll see if I can get an alpha version of classes up tonight as well.

Ugganaut
2018-04-17, 10:48 AM
Looking forward to it.
Will have to go through all the spells a bit more thoroughly, now that you're almost done.

Kryx
2018-04-18, 05:58 PM
Kryx's Houserules (https://drive.google.com/open?id=1rcREG1vB4fU8OUoXx3G6Nq0jhkNZ2-Fi) will be the new URL of my rules. Races will be included when those are more polished.

This should not be considered complete or even playtest ready. Still TODO:

Recalculate summon spells
Add "unthemed spells" as their own theme
Add spells inspired by 5e mystic disciplines
Modify classes and subclasses
Cleanup

I've done a once over on all classes I believe, but it was at a very high level so don't expect perfect quality. I'll need to go over each class and subclass individually.

Ugganaut
2018-04-18, 10:03 PM
Well this gets the brain working :)

Issues that stood out at first glance:
1. Magical Insights had no limitations on choice. Eg. Sorcerers can take Life at level 1.
2. Magical Insights seems to make all classes Spells Known, and I think removing Prepared casters really removes something from the system.
3. If you wanted to be more of a generalist, you'll have very few actual spells, but a very large amount of cantrips.

What I'd like to see:
1. Once you know a theme, you automatically know all spells as soon as your mana limit reaches the level needed to cast it. Otherwise I'm not sure what the point of putting spells into themes actually is.
2. Class restrictions on themes. No Life theme for arcane casters
3. Predetermined themes. eg. Acolyte would gain whatever themes fit all Acolytes, like Divine, Divination and Protection. Depending on their god, they then choose Life or Death, and Light or Shadow. Then depending on which domain they pick, the gain one or more additional themes. Any theme granted by a class feature bypasses any restriction to the theme. So a Celestial origin Sorcerer might gain access to Divine theme, normally restricted to divine classes. For domains, you could set a list of possibilities appropriate, and let them pick X themes from that list. A domain like Knowledge might get to pick from a really large list(or all 33 themes if appropriate), and gain additional themes at level 6(Magical Secrets) for example.
I think the biggest challenge here would be what base classes get which themes added to their list to choose from, and how many can they choose.

If the amount of themes for traditionally Prepared casters is large enough, then you could bring back Prepared Spells.
For the Spells Known casters, keep the amount of themes they know more restricted. Which should be pretty easy. Arcane casters get Arcane theme for example, and then a choice of X themes from a list determined by class/subclass/origin(sorc/warlock) etc.
Knowing all spells in a theme, still has the large number of cantrips known issue mentioned above. Although I'm not convinced its actually an issue, as you aren't cherry picking the best cantrips, you're picking whole themes.

You could then have a talent to gain an additional theme, as long as the meet the prereqs for that theme.

I think its important to make sure arcane casters don't get access to traditional divine themes(Life/Divine theme), and vice versa - unless they gain access through a specialization like Domain or Origin. The choice shouldn't be on their general list to choose from. Also traditional magic users getting access to psionics doesn't seem right either.

Ugganaut
2018-04-18, 11:23 PM
Another thought, you could have specialists be better at their chosen theme, or expand their spells lists without giving them full access to a theme.

Examples, a specialist(eg. Wizard specialists, Acolyte domains etc) might be able to cast spells as though they spent mana equal to mana expended +1, X amount of times per short rest.
If 6 mana spells are draining, and you can only cast one per long rest, a specialist can cast a 6 mana spell from their specialty theme without it counting toward that limit once a day(so 2 per day, as long as one is from their specialty theme).

On spell list expansion, Protection domain might pick one defensive spell each time their mana limit increases from the following list(this is an example, not a complete list): Earthen Bulwark, Protection from Flames, Shield, Ice Block etc.

That way specialists are set apart by their access and the power they add to their specialty.
A class like the bard has no specialty bonuses exactly, but has increased choice due to their "jack of all trades" nature. Although they might get access to the Life theme, the don't get the "mana expended +1" that a Life domain cleric would.
A Wizard might have a large access, but their specialty bonus applies to certain spells, not themes.
A Sorcerer would have less themes, but their specialty bonus applies to all spells in one theme(possibly two later on, if its from their Origin themes).

I'm trying to give you ideas to hopefully consider while you're in the "spell system integration to classes" phase. Obviously the specific number of themes and class features are not number crunched in any way. These are general ideas only.

Kryx
2018-04-19, 03:04 AM
2. Magical Insights seems to make all classes Spells Known, and I think removing Prepared casters really removes something from the system.
We talked about this before:


All classes will have spells known, including the Mage, Acolyte, and Naturalist.

The Naturalist will swap completely and will not have any special abilities - at least that's my plan.
The Acolyte, due to their divine connection, will be able to change a set amount of spells known on rests (that is effectively what prepared spells are, but this way is far simpler).
The Mage, due to their spellbook, will be able to change a set amount of spells known on rests. Their spellbook will add new spells on level and when they buy them, but they will still know the exact same amount of spells known as a Sorcerer, but will be able to change X amount on each rest. To swap to a new spell the spell must be of a theme they know. If they don't know the theme then they'll have to swap multiple spells. It should all work out in that regard.

Spells Prepared, by RAW, is just Spells Known with significantly more spells known and the ability to swap them all out on a long rest.

Acolyte/Mage retain the ability to swap spells out - the only thing that actually changes mechanically is the amount of spells changed.

This method exposes Prepared for the huge mechanical benefit that it is. "Prepared" is just a flavored version of spells temporarily known which is captured with the Acolyte and Mage features so there isn't a need for "prepared" with the mechanics that have been added I believe.


3. If you wanted to be more of a generalist, you'll have very few actual spells, but a very large amount of cantrips.
You can have up to proficiency bonus number of themes, so 6. As stated as one of the goals of this project is there is a tradeoff between generalism and specialization. Generalism knows less spells, but from more themes. Balance.


1. Magical Insights had no limitations on choice. Eg. Sorcerers can take Life at level 1.
2. Class restrictions on themes. No Life theme for arcane casters

I think its important to make sure arcane casters don't get access to traditional divine themes(Life/Divine theme), and vice versa - unless they gain access through a specialization like Domain or Origin. The choice shouldn't be on their general list to choose from. Also traditional magic users getting access to psionics doesn't seem right either.
Your desired limitations do not align with RAW 5e, much less my variation of it. There are a significant number of examples of the traditional Arcane/Divine line being crossed in RAW and UA 5e: Celestial Warlock, Divine Soul Sorcerer, Light Cleric, Tempest Cleric, Trickery Cleric, Arcana Cleric, Shadow Monk, Sun Soul Monk, Horizon Walker Ranger, Theurgy Wizard. Beyond RAW there are hundreds of implementation of Arcane Paladins, Divine Wizards, and many other ideas that break the traditional Arcane/Divine divide of older editions.

Examples:

Why shouldn't a Celestial Occultist/Sorcerer be able to take the Life theme? How about the Light and Divine theme? All of those are in the traditional realm of celestial magic so a creature infused with celestial magic should have access to them.
How about a Cleric dedicated to an Arcane deity? They should have quite the access to "Arcane" spells (not the theme, just arcane feeling). For example if a Cleric chooses Auril (http://forgottenrealms.wikia.com/wiki/Auril) then they'd likely choose the Frost and Undeath themes. Why should that be restricted?

I can't possibly create enough combinations of subclasses that grant the ability to pick a myriad of different themes as the combinations would number in the thousands. Instead, it has been left up to the player to make thematic options appropriate for their character.

To touch on psionics: this line has been significantly blurred for a very long time. Telepathy, Telekinesis, and many other "psionic" features have existed in traditional D&D magic since the beginning. If you believe there is some extreme outlier feel free to point it out, but a Mind Mage shouldn't be limited by lines drawn by D&D 3.5 that have since been bulldozed by 5e.


3. Predetermined themes. eg. Acolyte would gain whatever themes fit all Acolytes, like Divine, Divination and Protection. Depending on their god, they then choose Life or Death, and Light or Shadow. Then depending on which domain they pick, the gain one or more additional themes. Any theme granted by a class feature bypasses any restriction to the theme. So a Celestial origin Sorcerer might gain access to Divine theme, normally restricted to divine classes. For domains, you could set a list of possibilities appropriate, and let them pick X themes from that list. A domain like Knowledge might get to pick from a really large list(or all 33 themes if appropriate), and gain additional themes at level 6(Magical Secrets) for example.
I think the biggest challenge here would be what base classes get which themes added to their list to choose from, and how many can they choose.
I've heavily considered this, but I believe it to be a misguided option for most classes. It would make sense for a Naturalist to have the Nature theme or possibly the Mage to have the Arcane theme, but classes like Acolyte won't always be connected to their deity in a "Divine" way. An example to show this would be the Arcane Acolyte that I mentioned before. This Acolyte could entirely ignore the Divine domain in favor of Arcane, Alteration, and Illusion for example. Or perhaps it's more of an Oracle and goes for Fate and Divination. Forcing Divine as a theme doesn't seem appropriate for all, or even most, acolytes.
To highlight the issue of subclass based themes: What theme does the Celestial Occultist/Sorcerer get? Divine, Life, or Light? And now I have to make a subclass for every possible combination of themes.
A Mage might not study traditional "Arcane" magic either - perhaps they study shadow magic, never touching Arcane.

Alternatively I may wipe out subclasses for casters and have features based on a theme and you can choose 1 feature from X themes. I think that's a more sustainable design to capture many more ideas.



1. Once you know a theme, you automatically know all spells as soon as your mana limit reaches the level needed to cast it. Otherwise I'm not sure what the point of putting spells into themes actually is.
This would be absolutely ridiculously powerful. In 5e characters "know" (either know or prepared) about 25 spells. Each theme currently has 15-25 spells. So granting all of those spells would give characters somewhere around 35 spells known scaling up to 100+ when they have 6 themes. This is not a valid approach with the current setup nor do I think it's a good approach. Characters should choose which spells they want. For example if I have the fire theme I may just want raw fire power and not to have the ability to animate fire. Sure, I could ignore that spell, but that doesn't work well at all.


You could then have a talent to gain an additional theme, as long as the meet the prereqs for that theme.
There will possibly be a talent. I'll have to explore the idea after setting the base system.



Another thought, you could have specialists be better at their chosen theme, or expand their spells lists without giving them full access to a theme.

I'm trying to give you ideas to hopefully consider while you're in the "spell system integration to classes" phase. Obviously the specific number of themes and class features are not number crunched in any way. These are general ideas only.
It's too early to talk about edge cases that break the rules when the system isn't fully realized, but thanks for some things to consider.


Examples, a specialist(eg. Wizard specialists, Acolyte domains etc) might be able to cast spells as though they spent mana equal to mana expended +1, X amount of times per short rest.
The Monk already has this as a 14th level feature. Though a Monk is generally limited to 1 theme (sometimes 2) so this power imbalance is managed as they also have a half caster mana limit.


If 6 mana spells are draining, and you can only cast one per long rest, a specialist can cast a 6 mana spell from their specialty theme without it counting toward that limit once a day(so 2 per day, as long as one is from their specialty theme).
The 6 mana limitation should never be allowed to be bypassed. Wish and other powerful 6 mana spells are purposefully placed at 6 mana to limit their usage. Otherwise I could reduce their effectiveness and put them at 5 mana.


On spell list expansion, Protection domain might pick one defensive spell each time their mana limit increases from the following list(this is an example, not a complete list): Earthen Bulwark, Protection from Flames, Shield, Ice Block etc.
All of those spells are nearly identical, just with a different thematic flavor. I do not expect characters to pick up more than 1 in most cases.

Ugganaut
2018-04-19, 07:49 AM
It feels strange that any caster can heal and raise dead with a single theme.
Some non-divine 5e classes do have a subclass that gets access to some heal/group heal/resurrect spells, but generally not all of them. Individuals will be different depending on their choices, but the classes would seem far to similar by the looks, as any class can choose any theme. Wizard healers would be interesting I admit :)
Psions might be the same, with exactly the same spell selection as every other caster. Nothing seems to separate psionics from magic. In order to attain balance, some of the flavor seems lost.

With 33 themes(plus unthemed), its hard to imagine a real generalist, that has access to at least half of those themes. That would leave you with around 15 cantrips, and 15 spells at level 20.
5e when a wizard finds a new spell, he puts it in his spellbook and he's good to go. This way if its not in a theme you have access to, it'll take you two levels to use that one spell.

After you've finished, I'll have another look and try converting some characters I have, and making up some new concept characters. I'm probably completely wrong on all this.

Kryx
2018-04-19, 08:38 AM
It feels strange that any caster can heal and raise dead with a single theme.
Some non-divine 5e classes do have a subclass that gets access to some heal/group heal/resurrect spells, but generally not all of them. Individuals will be different depending on their choices, but the classes would seem far to similar by the looks, as any class can choose any theme. Wizard healers would be interesting I admit :)
I'm open to ideas to raise the barrier, but it shouldn't be off-limits. I'm highly considering ditching subclasses in favor of theme features so that doesn't seem like the right direction.


Psions might be the same, with exactly the same spell selection as every other caster. Nothing seems to separate psionics from magic. In order to attain balance, some of the flavor seems lost.
Psionics is the exact same as magic - it's just mind based magic. But it has always had the same themes (schools) as traditional magic. Look at 3.5/Pathfinder psionics for example and you'll see the psionic disciplines are just slight variants of schools, but all the same kind of ideas (teleportation, charming, etc). There doesn't need to be a separation it seems. Why shouldn't a Mage be able to use telepathy?
Again look at spells like Telekinesis and Telepathy: You likely have no issue with those being on the RAW Wizard spell list. Other "psionic" spells are the same unless I'm missing specific ones.


With 33 themes(plus unthemed), its hard to imagine a real generalist, that has access to at least half of those themes.
As I wrote above the maximum number of themes is 6. 6 provides around 120 spell options and should offer plenty of ways of solving problems.


5e when a wizard finds a new spell, he puts it in his spellbook and he's good to go. This way if its not in a theme you have access to, it'll take you two levels to use that one spell.
Yes, diversity has a cost of magical insights. No class, including the Mage, is able to access all of the themes.


After you've finished, I'll have another look and try converting some characters I have, and making up some new concept characters. I'm probably completely wrong on all this.
I will provide a "Traditional" implementation when it's done to outline how a "Standard Cleric" could work, though that depends on how the system looks at the end. http://spheresofpower.wikidot.com/sphere-paladin type pages are a good example of this.

Spheres of Power (http://spheresofpower.wikidot.com/spheres-of-power) is a large influencer of these ideas. It is a massively popular project for Pathfinder. The ideas of themes originates there and there are many similarities. I'd suggest checking that out.

Ugganaut
2018-04-20, 01:19 AM
Psionics is the exact same as magic - it's just mind based magic. But it has always had the same themes (schools) as traditional magic. Look at 3.5/Pathfinder psionics for example and you'll see the psionic disciplines are just slight variants of schools, but all the same kind of ideas (teleportation, charming, etc). There doesn't need to be a separation it seems. Why shouldn't a Mage be able to use telepathy?
Again look at spells like Telekinesis and Telepathy: You likely have no issue with those being on the RAW Wizard spell list. Other "psionic" spells are the same unless I'm missing specific ones.
My introduction to psionics was in 2e I think, where they were completely separate things. Psionics worked in dead magic zones, and got past a lot of magic defenses, although was more limited in other areas. For example, Cloud Mind I believe was the psionic version of Invisibility, but where Inv was an illusion you put around yourself, Cloud Mind wiped you from someones mind. I did like the distinction initially, but ingame, psionics(which in our games was rarer than magic), seemed overpowered because it didn't interact with magic. So I liked when they both became the same source of energy but accessed differently, just so they interacted with each.
Your example of Telekinesis and Telepathy I understand, and you're right I don't have issue with it. There has always been varying degrees of overlap between psionics and magic, and also between divine and arcane(Detect Magic, Hold Person etc). Psionics sometimes varied in its application as I mentioned with Cloud Mind, but the effects were similar, and in other cases identical.
But even saying Psionics is magic, its still possible to make it feel different, by having some exclusive options, and keeping the old Visual, Olfactory etc instead of magics VSM(as you did in your last version). That's why each class has its own spell list, even if there are overlaps, and ways to access those other lists in limited number. Everyone having access to everything(limited to any 6 themes of course), makes casters feel to similar in my opinion, although the individual characters would of course be different due to the limited selection. I might just be stuck in the old way of thinking.


As I wrote above the maximum number of themes is 6. 6 provides around 120 spell options and should offer plenty of ways of solving problems.
Sorry I missed that max 6 first time. That's even stranger to me. A "generalist" has access to 6 of 33 themes. That's not exactly a generalist, although it could be broad with choices like Fire, Beast, Life, Arcane, Mind and Teleportation. If you put the list of spells you could possibly have for a lvl 20 wizard side by side, standard 5e and themes, they would barely look related. And having 120 spells from 6 themes means they are all quite similar, not a broad range of options for something like a wizard.
But this might be the goal of your themes, to completely change the look and feel of all casters.

I've never played Pathfinder. I don't have time right now to look through the links, but I'll try take a look later.

Kryx
2018-04-20, 01:43 AM
But even saying Psionics is magic, its still possible to make it feel different, by having some exclusive options, and keeping the old Visual, Olfactory etc instead of magics VSM(as you did in your last version). That's why each class has its own spell list, even if there are overlaps, and ways to access those other lists in limited number.
Psionics was historically a way of using a new spell system with many of the exact same spells, sometimes rebranded.

The idea of using your mind to impact the world is very much possible with themes - there are many spells that do so. Most are under the mind or telepathy themes. What do you believe is missing?


Everyone having access to everything(limited to any 6 themes of course), makes casters feel to similar in my opinion, although the individual characters would of course be different due to the limited selection. I might just be stuck in the old way of thinking.
A class determines where you magic comes from, not necessarily the type of magic.
An Acolyte gets power from their deity
A Mage gets power from study
A Minstrel gets power from their voice/instrument
A Monk gets power from their inner Ki
A Naturalist gets power from nature
An Occultist gets power from their patron
A Psionicist gets power from their inner mental strength
A Sorcerer gets power from their heritage

None of those dictate the type of power they exude except the Naturalist. An Acolyte's Deity could represent any of the themes as could an Occultist's Patron and a Sorcerer's heritage. Those classes at least should have a wide variety of options.


Sorry I missed that max 6 first time. That's even stranger to me. A "generalist" has access to 6 of 33 themes. That's not exactly a generalist, although it could be broad with choices like Fire, Beast, Life, Arcane, Mind and Teleportation. If you put the list of spells you could possibly have for a lvl 20 wizard side by side, standard 5e and themes, they would barely look related. And having 120 spells from 6 themes means they are all quite similar, not a broad range of options for something like a wizard.
Where is this "generalist" idea coming from? By RAW:
A Bard has 113 spells on their list
A Cleric has 99 spells on their list
A Druid has 126 spells on their list
A Paladin has 45 spells on their list
A Ranger has 49 spells on their list
A Sorcerer has 137 spells on their list
A Warlock has 71 spells on their list
A Wizard has 230 spells on their list

6 themes, which provide access to 120 spells, provides a very similar amount of spells to most RAW casters. Also keep in mind that many spells have been combined so 120 is more like 140-160 RAW spells. Where is the issue? Wizard? Wizard has spellbook which allows them to swap freely between spells - they have plenty of access to be a "generalist" if they choose appropriate themes. Or they could choose to focus on a few - both options are viable options.
Besides, pure number of spells shouldn't indicate generalism. In RAW 5e half of spells are garbage spells either due to damage issues or other balance issues. If you look at a Wizard guide you'll see not all are great options. My rules change that, significantly.



But this might be the goal of your themes, to completely change the look and feel of all casters.
The goal is to provide significantly more player choice in the theme of their character and access to more spells that fit the theme of their character. A fire mage for example should have access to all fire spells which isn't the case by RAW.

Ugganaut
2018-04-20, 08:17 AM
Psionics was historically a way of using a new spell system with many of the exact same spells, sometimes rebranded.
The idea of using your mind to impact the world is very much possible with themes - there are many spells that do so. Most are under the mind or telepathy themes. What do you believe is missing?
Flavor, specifically for the classes access to magic. It might not be as much of an issue as I think it is, won't know until I start making up different classes with identical themes. But Wizards casting cure spells and raising dead, that just isn't a thing as far as I know. Sorcerer(Divine) can get Cure Wounds, but not all the heal spells, and raise spells. Non-Cleric/Paladin's get limited access to those type of spells. Druids reincarnate, not raise dead. Even Bards have some, but not all. There is absolutely a lot of overlap in some areas, but its never been a free-for-all when it comes to what options you have to choose from. An atheist wizard learning Life spells from a book just doesn't fit any dnd game I've ever played.


None of those dictate the type of power they exude except the Naturalist. An Acolyte's Deity could represent any of the themes as could an Occultist's Patron and a Sorcerer's heritage. Those classes at least should have a wide variety of options. 6 themes, which provide access to 120 spells, provides a very similar amount of spells to most RAW casters.
A similar number of options yes, but I'm not seeing the wide variety exactly. 6 of 33 themes maximum.


Where is this "generalist" idea coming from? By RAW:
A Bard has 113 spells on their list
A Cleric has 99 spells on their list
A Druid has 126 spells on their list
A Paladin has 45 spells on their list
A Ranger has 49 spells on their list
A Sorcerer has 137 spells on their list
A Warlock has 71 spells on their list
A Wizard has 230 spells on their list
I think Wizard. Even though all wizards are technically specialists, they have access to the full wizard spell list. As you mentioned, a lot of spells were fringe at best, but that was a strength of the wizard. He could learn those fringe spells, just in case it that situation came up. I doubt many Warlocks or Bards would choose something like Illusory Script because it takes up a valuable "spells known" slot. But a wizard can learn it just in case, it just costs him a bit of gold. It's not on the Sorcerer list, because it doesn't really suit their type of power - even though Bard/Wiz/Sorc/Lock all share "arcane magic".


Besides, pure number of spells shouldn't indicate generalism. In RAW 5e half of spells are garbage spells either due to damage issues or other balance issues. If you look at a Wizard guide you'll see not all are great options. My rules change that, significantly.
No, not all are great options, but some do have cool fringe uses, that a wizard can take advantage of as I mentioned above. And I agree completely, your rules have changed things significantly for the better imo. It's access I'm having an issue with, but I'm have trouble thinking of a solution to propose.


The goal is to provide significantly more player choice in the theme of their character and access to more spells that fit the theme of their character. A fire mage for example should have access to all fire spells which isn't the case by RAW.
I understand that, and think its a really good idea. Some spells that have previously been locked to other classes for no good reason, you've definitely fixed.

I think my two main problems are:
1. Certain classes getting unrestricted access to the some themes(Life being the most obvious), as opposed to some archtypes/subclasses getting limited access.
2. The flavor of the caster classes are now to similar. The difference between a Psion and Wizard is barely perceptible - same magic, same casting style, same spell access, same class features, slightly different specialization features. With the removal of Verbal/Somatic, and the psionics Visual/Olfactory etc, the difference is even less.

Kryx
2018-04-20, 09:03 AM
I believe your approach is very close minded. Lets focus on the main complaints and then get to the nitty gritty.


I think my two main problems are:
1. Certain classes getting unrestricted access to the some themes(Life being the most obvious), as opposed to some archtypes/subclasses getting limited access.
I acknowledge your complaints and I doubt you'll be the only one to have them, but I would really challenge you to think beyond your self-imposed prejudices. Maybe certain themes should be limited, but I believe your current desires do not align with character concepts.

Some challenging questions:

Why should the Cleric be the only class that can heal well or that can resurrect people? Why can't a Celestial Occultist/Sorcerer do so? Why can't a Witch of the wilds with ancient power do so? Why can't a Naturalist do so when fey are known for healing springs or stories of people being resurrected by the wild?
Why shouldn't a Wizard be able to cure wounds and raise the dead? Google "D&D 5e white mage" and you'll see many variations of a Wizard who casts healing magic. A Wizard can already raise the undead through their various necromancy spells as well as preserve bodies via spells like Gentle Repose. A Wizard generally wouldn't focus on a Life theme, but if one wanted to there is definitinely historical ideas within fantasy RPGs that fulfill that idea. Keep in mind if a Wizard chooses to learn the Life theme then their versatility in other areas is diminished.
Why shouldn't a Sorcerer be able to cast heal and raise spells? By RAW a Celestial Warlock gets cure wounds, lesser restoration, revivify, and greater restoration. It ticks all the boxes that you say a Divine Sorcerer should not get. Why shouldn't an Occultist who has a Patron who is a celestial or Celestial Heritage be able to access the things that a Celestial Warlock can, or even further: Why can't they access the whole theme? It's quite ridiculous that a Celestial can bestow a Warlock magic and yet the Warlock is unable to use the types of spells their Patron could generally give. Additionally they are bound to a spell list that has no connection to their Patron.


In general I think you're undervaluing the cost of taking a theme.


2. The flavor of the caster classes are now to similar. The difference between a Psion and Wizard is barely perceptible - same magic, same casting style, same spell access, same class features, slightly different specialization features. With the removal of Verbal/Somatic, and the psionics Visual/Olfactory etc, the difference is even less.
The flavor of casters has not changed at all. What has changed is spell lists. I would challenge your Psion/Wizard comparison by proposing a comparison of an Occultist/Sorcerer. In 5e they are incredibly similar classes. I once combined them, but now I've kept their identities in their classes and just share subclasses. I'll probably do the same with Psion/Wizard.
What is wrong with such an approach? A Psion and Wizard are actually nearly identical besides how they cast spell.



Nitty Gritty:

Flavor, specifically for the classes access to magic. It might not be as much of an issue as I think it is, won't know until I start making up different classes with identical themes.
Focusing on psionics: what flavor is missing? Their class describes how they cast spells and the spells describe what they do. Wizard's Arcane spells don't specify that the wizard "pulls on the threads of magic", nor does the Psion's spells.

So what, specifically is missing regarding psionics? It sounds like you want the 3.5 approach of copying arcane spells and renaming them with psionic terms, but there aren't even arcane terms in the normal spell so the spells work for both. The same is true for the Arcane/Divine divide: it has been heavily squashed in 5e.


A similar number of options yes, but I'm not seeing the wide variety exactly. 6 of 33 themes maximum.
6/33 is not the full picture, at all. A Wizard will still have a significant amount of variety with the ability to swap their spells as desired to fit the situation at hand. Their flavor and playstyle is full preserved albeit in a way that is more balanced.

A RAW Wizard's breath of options is far beyond that which should be available to a single class. They have nearly double the options of spells that step on the toes of every other arcane caster. So it's by design that the Wizard no longer has un unreasonable and unbalanced amount of spell options.


I think Wizard. Even though all wizards are technically specialists, they have access to the full wizard spell list.
A Wizard, by RAW 5e, focuses on 1 school as shown by their subclasses. While generalist wizard is a common desire, I'd argue the idea of a generalist wizard that has access to hundreds of more spells than other casters does not match with the balance of 5e.


As you mentioned, a lot of spells were fringe at best, but that was a strength of the wizard. He could learn those fringe spells, just in case it that situation came up.
That situation is still true - the Wizard still has a spellbook that allows them to store "fringe" spells and pull them up as needed.

Ugganaut
2018-04-20, 11:21 AM
Some challenging questions:

Why should the Cleric be the only class that can heal well or that can resurrect people? Why can't a Celestial Occultist/Sorcerer do so? Why can't a Witch of the wilds with ancient power do so? Why can't a Naturalist do so when fey are known for healing springs or stories of people being resurrected by the wild?
Why shouldn't a Wizard be able to cure wounds and raise the dead? Google "D&D 5e white mage" and you'll see many variations of a Wizard who casts healing magic. A Wizard can already raise the undead through their various necromancy spells as well as preserve bodies via spells like Gentle Repose. A Wizard generally wouldn't focus on a Life theme, but if one wanted to there is definitinely historical ideas within fantasy RPGs that fulfill that idea. Keep in mind if a Wizard chooses to learn the Life theme then their versatility in other areas is diminished.
Why shouldn't a Sorcerer be able to cast heal and raise spells? By RAW a Celestial Warlock gets cure wounds, lesser restoration, revivify, and greater restoration. It ticks all the boxes that you say a Divine Sorcerer should not get. Why shouldn't an Occultist who has a Patron who is a celestial or Celestial Heritage be able to access the things that a Celestial Warlock can, or even further: Why can't they access the whole theme? It's quite ridiculous that a Celestial can bestow a Warlock magic and yet the Warlock is unable to use the types of spells their Patron could generally give. Additionally they are bound to a spell list that has no connection to their Patron.

Examples of limited access, which I don't have issue with. Clerics have always been the ones to have full access, with the exception of Reincarnate. The white mage I looked at, was unofficial(for dnd at least), and was a wizard tradition. So the access to all the Life spells was limited, and it was further limited to a single tradition.
Celestial Warlock has some good access, but not full access. Sorcerer should probably match the Warlocks access. In all games of DnD I've played in the last 25 years, if you want the full access to healing, you go cleric. It's rigid thinking I'm sure, it just wouldn't feel like DnD to me if some of those more traditional boundaries weren't in place. It would feel more like a generic fantasy rule set. Which isn't bad, I just know I couldn't bring it to my dnd group, which is always the perspective I'm coming from.


In general I think you're undervaluing the cost of taking a theme.
I understand 1 of 6 themes is a cost, but its cheaper than having to multi-class.


The flavor of casters has not changed at all. What has changed is spell lists.
That's a pretty large part of flavor in my opinion. Wizards have never been able to heal like a Cleric in DnD.


I would challenge your Psion/Wizard comparison by proposing a comparison of an Occultist/Sorcerer. In 5e they are incredibly similar classes. I once combined them, but now I've kept their identities in their classes and just share subclasses. I'll probably do the same with Psion/Wizard.
What is wrong with such an approach? A Psion and Wizard are actually nearly identical besides how they cast spell.
I used psionics in 2nd, a little in 3.5, and some in 4e(but I'll exclude 4e as it doesn't usually fit with anything), and a psion never felt like a wizard. The Psion in your latest doc, doesn't feel remotely similar to the stuff I played in the past. It feels like a wizard. Old psions did not feel like wizards. A combination of how they use their power(components), and slight differences in many powers. There will always be overlap, there are only so many unique effects and mechanics you can come up with that are also balanced. I mentioned Cloud Mind before. Another was Body Adjustment(I think). You could heal yourself. Similar to Cure Wounds, but you could only use it on yourself. There was quite a few powers like that, that worked slightly different, and that made a big different to flavor. At least for me. For more examples I'd have to go through the old psionic stuff to compare.


So what, specifically is missing regarding psionics? It sounds like you want the 3.5 approach of copying arcane spells and renaming them with psionic terms.
The things I listed above. Those slight changes to overlapping spells, limitations on types of spells, differing components(which I saw you have removed).


6/33 is not the full picture, at all. A Wizard will still have a significant amount of variety with the ability to swap their spells as desired to fit the situation at hand. Their flavor and playstyle is full preserved albeit in a way that is more balanced.
A RAW Wizard's breath of options is far beyond that which should be available to a single class. They have nearly double the options of spells that step on the toes of every other arcane caster. So it's by design that the Wizard no longer has an unreasonable and unbalanced amount of spell options.
Really? I've never seen a wizard with all those spells. I've mentioned before I don't play wizards, but I'm pretty sure they learn 2 spells per level. The rest they have to find. Comparing to a Cleric(another prepared caster), who gets every single spell on their spell list as soon as they are able to cast it. Wizards can get more spell options than Clerics, but they have to work hard to get there. Your way is definitely balanced, they all feel the same. I know wizards can still learn new spells and swap them out, as long as its from one of their 6 of 33 themes. I'm just not sure thats much of an advantage over a Sorcerer who chooses wisely, from the same 6 of 33 themes. A wizard still can't learn invisibility unless he has access to that theme, and that requires two levels worth of Magical Insight(beyond 1st). When a wizard finds another wizards 20th level spellbook, there is a very good chance he won't be able to learn anything because with 33 themes, the 1-6 they chose could easy be different. At that is an example of why I think the flavor has changed, because its missing some of the common threads through the various editions of DnD. If you were a wizard, and you found another wizards spellbook, it was exciting. The chance you both had identical spells was near zero, so you were going to learn something new, maybe a lot.

Kryx
2018-04-20, 12:01 PM
The white mage I looked at, was unofficial(for dnd at least), and was a wizard tradition. So the access to all the Life spells was limited, and it was further limited to a single tradition.
*sigh*. White mage isn't official just as an Arcane Paladin isn't official just as hundreds of other fantasy ideas aren't official. Official does not indicate whether they should exist or not.


Celestial Warlock has some good access, but not full access. Sorcerer should probably match the Warlocks access.
You've missed the point so I'm going to repeat it:

Why shouldn't an Occultist who has a Patron who is a celestial or Celestial Heritage be able to access the things that a Celestial Warlock can, or even further: Why can't they access the whole theme? It's quite ridiculous that a Celestial can bestow a Warlock magic and yet the Warlock is unable to use the types of spells their Patron could generally give. Additionally they are bound to a spell list that has no connection to their Patron.

RAW's "window into an idea" is insufficient and too limited for the reasons I've stated above. Subclass spell lists do not solve the issue that I'm trying to address so continually pointing to them will get us no where.


In all games of DnD I've played in the last 25 years, if you want the full access to healing, you go cleric. It's rigid thinking I'm sure, it just wouldn't feel like DnD to me if some of those more traditional boundaries weren't in place. It would feel more like a generic fantasy rule set. Which isn't bad, I just know I couldn't bring it to my dnd group, which is always the perspective I'm coming from.
See above, this rigidness is something I'm removing by design. As above, perhaps there are some limitations to add, but a Celestial Occultist/Sorcerer should unquestionably have full access to celestially themed spells. We can work further on other classes (Wizard), but if you are not in agreement with that then this isn't the right project for you.





Really? I've never seen a wizard with all those spells. I've mentioned before I don't play wizards, but I'm pretty sure they learn 2 spells per level. The rest they have to find. Comparing to a Cleric(another prepared caster), who gets every single spell on their spell list as soon as they are able to cast it. Wizards can get more spell options than Clerics, but they have to work hard to get there.
Please focus on mechanics when discussing balance.
By RAW:

A Bard has 22 spells known
A Sorcerer has 15 spells known
A Warlock has 19 spells known
A Wizard has 44 spells known. They can prepare 31 each day. Not only do they know 2-3x as many spells, but they have ~2x as many options in every combat and can also swap them out. That's horrendously unbalanced not to mention the spell list disparities.

"The rest they have to find" doesn't matter when they already have 2-3x as many spells as other arcane casters. A Cleric gets all their spells, but their list is 99 spells and generally considered significantly less valuable than a Wizard's spell list.


Your way is definitely balanced, they all feel the same.
They aren't the same, at all... one can swap out their spells while the other can't.


At that is an example of why I think the flavor has changed, because its missing some of the common threads through the various editions of DnD. If you were a wizard, and you found another wizards spellbook, it was exciting. The chance you both had identical spells was near zero, so you were going to learn something new, maybe a lot.
It is a design goal to not allow a quadratic Wizard class that is better than every other class.




Continually asking for RAW 5e's rigidness and me continually saying "that's not the goal" is getting us no where. This system will never provide something that matches RAW's rigidness. It is designed to be more open to character ideas than the RAW system. This system may provide some restrictions, but what you're asking for with statements like "only the cleric can heal well" is not a goal I'm looking to match. Additionally continuing to repeat "6 of 33 themes" gets us no where. I do not believe you have really considered the diversity a Wizard can provide with 6 themes.

Ugganaut
2018-04-20, 12:44 PM
I'll drop it, I'll have a look at the final product. Apologies for being a pain :smallsmile:

Kryx
2018-04-28, 05:48 PM
I found an interesting thread that discussed the exact topic that we've been discussing: http://paizo.com/threads/rzs2svm1?Does-Spheres-of-Power-dilute-the-flavor-of

The posters on that thread share the same thoughts as I do.

It also reminded me of the Mystic Theurge - a Arcane/Divine prestige class (typically Wizard/Cleric). That really embodies the main complaint that you've raised so there is historical precedent in D&D.

Beyond casting traditions which people can use to emulate traditional limitations I think the current classes that I have are empty shells. They need more class features that make them unique from one another.

I've been busy with other stuff lately, but I'll try to hop back to this project soon.

Ugganaut
2018-04-29, 12:32 AM
Interesting read. Not familiar with the system, but sounded similar to DnD, so think I followed it.

I can see both sides. I like the idea of certain restrictions, like "If you take X sphere, you can't take Y sphere". But their could be casting traditions which bypass that restriction, like the cleric of a god who holds sway over Life and Death, but maybe they are locked out from taking Undeath.
Life sphere could be generally locked to arcane casters, but a Mystic Theurge or White Wizard casting tradition would get access to it.
The best place I can see to put restrictions, would be within each casting tradition, saying what spheres they can and can't access. Only slightly restrictive, like Life and Divine for arcane casters in general, so it doesn't limit creativity too much.

I like the concept, creating a shell to provide the most room for creativity.

ZZTRaider: "Normally, there's a lot of flavor built into the spell list for each class. The Cleric's spell list looks a lot different than the Wizard's, for example, and the differences reflect a lot about the different flavors of the classes. A Wizard can be just as competent a healer as a Cleric, and that feels a little weird."
"Where it's breaking down for me is trying to figure out how to keep clear differences between different types of casters (not just arcane vs divine, but even things like Bard vs Wizard and Warpriest vs Inquisitor) without introducing a lot of bookkeeping or causing issues with multiclassing."

This sums up my concerns. I think this can be overcome by limitations. Like what spheres should ALL clerics have access to, all wizards etc. Then 1-2 locked spheres can be accessed via specific casting traditions/deity followed.

Another thing I think really separates casters is components and implements/focuses. I liked that 5e had the focus as "ignore material components below 10gp". It saved on a lot of book keeping.
However, I think each spell needs clear components. Clerics usually call to their god, wizards use a lot of hand gestures, psions have a completely different set of components so they feel completely different. From spell to spell, it makes a big difference if the DM says the spell is V, S, or V+S. Usually, you've always needed training to ignore V or S(Warcaster, Subtle Casting etc). Removing the whole component system removes a lot of flavor in my opinion.

Kryx
2018-04-29, 05:02 AM
Restriction on a design level should be handled with care as it closes off the system to the characters that I, myself, think should exist. It wouldn't allow for players and GMs to determine what type of characters should exist. That was the whole conversation in that thread, the whole point of Spheres of Power, and the whole point of this Theme system: Players and GMs should determine characters, not me as a designer.
For example there are plenty of character ideas where Life, Death, and Undeath together would make perfect sense.

That said there could be some restrictions that also make sense. For example Mage being restricted from the Life theme, but opened up via a subclass or talent. Clerics should choose their Themes based on their deity's domains. They could choose multiple deities or select other themes once they know the domains of their deity. Clerics should be restricted based on their deity, but also open ended as deities generally only have 2-3 domains. I'll have to figure out how to manage that. Psionicist should be forced toward the Mind theme, Minstrel pushed toward Charm, etc.

I think the thread handled my approach for restrictions:

If you, as the GM, feel that your world should have different restrictions or rules to separate divine and arcane casting, it also provides tools for that in the Casting Traditions, or you can customize it in different ways.

This post outlines the approach I'm taking in regards to Mages:

if someone is a conjurer, they are a CONJURER. They summon things. They form bindings with otherworldly beings and tap into their power to destroy their foes. A shapeshifter is a SHAPESHIFTER, solving problems by changing forms.

Magic OUGHT to have a shtick, in my opinion. Wizards are all the same after a while because arcane schools are basically just a decoration. The diviner's still conjuring minions and throwing acid and lightning, the evoker's still gazing into the future and turning into a dragon, the transmuter's still mind-controlling some enemies while weaving an illusion to scare off others...it's a buffet table. Wizards are supposed to be magical scientists, but instead of being like real-life scientists who are experts in a field like technology or biology or weather or sociology or economics, they're like movie scientists who are good at EVERY field because it's all science, right?

This post outlines the issue of the spell lists and what a system like Spheres of Power or my own Themes system solves:

One of my biggest issues with the spells in Pathfinder is that the Wizard's casting doesn't actually resemble anything outside of D&D/Pathfinder, including the works of Jack Vance that it's supposedly based off of. Spheres of Power lets you emulate pretty much anything though, whether it's Gandalf or Radagast the Brown, the spellcasting techniques in Steven Erikson's Malazan Book of the Fallen series, Jim Butcher's Dresden Files casting, Conan-esque magic, or yes, the magic you see in pretty much any anime. The Armorist class is pretty much your direct portal to playing a character like Erza Scarlet from Fairy Tail.


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


ZZTRaider: "Normally, there's a lot of flavor built into the spell list for each class. The Cleric's spell list looks a lot different than the Wizard's, for example, and the differences reflect a lot about the different flavors of the classes. A Wizard can be just as competent a healer as a Cleric, and that feels a little weird."
"Where it's breaking down for me is trying to figure out how to keep clear differences between different types of casters (not just arcane vs divine, but even things like Bard vs Wizard and Warpriest vs Inquisitor) without introducing a lot of bookkeeping or causing issues with multiclassing."
This sums up my concerns. I think this can be overcome by limitations. Like what spheres should ALL clerics have access to, all wizards etc. Then 1-2 locked spheres can be accessed via specific casting traditions/deity followed.
I believe this can be resolved by the things I mention above and expanding on the classes themselves. Classes need to be full of flavor and featurers instead of empty shells with spellcasting added on.


Another thing I think really separates casters is components and implements/focuses. I liked that 5e had the focus as "ignore material components below 10gp". It saved on a lot of book keeping.
However, I think each spell needs clear components. Clerics usually call to their god, wizards use a lot of hand gestures, psions have a completely different set of components so they feel completely different. From spell to spell, it makes a big difference if the DM says the spell is V, S, or V+S. Usually, you've always needed training to ignore V or S(Warcaster, Subtle Casting etc). Removing the whole component system removes a lot of flavor in my opinion.
We discussed this earlier in the thread. See

Check out Fixing Spell Components: Keep Your Flavour, Mike Mearls, I Donít Like It (http://dmsworkshop.com/2017/04/14/fixing-spell-components-keep-your-flavour-mike-mearls-i-dont-like-it/). Spell components, as they work in D&D, only capture a small subset of fantasy ways of casting a spell. It should be an option to use them, but I'm aiming to not have it be the default option. In general they have almost no impact on mechanical balance, only hinder some cases like TWF, Sword & Board, etc.
I'm aiming to provide them as a variant option, but we'll see how that is fleshed out when I get there.
http://spheresofpower.wikidot.com/casting-traditions#toc57 is an example of one such tradition.


To an earlier discussion: Cloud Mind exists in "Blind Spot" - it's from the UA Mystic and fills the same niche.

Ugganaut
2018-04-29, 05:34 AM
Looking forward to seeing all the class stuff. I do really like the theme magic.

I only play DnD, so that's how I view it, with the intent of hopefully using it. I know you're designing it with a wider scope.
It would be easy enough to put restrictions in per campaign as needed as you said.

Kryx
2018-04-29, 05:38 AM
I only play DnD, so that's how I view it [....] I know you're designing it with a wider scope.
The scope is to play D&D, not another game.. I know what you mean, but the way you've phrased your thoughts here doesn't represent this project well.

Ugganaut
2018-04-30, 07:52 AM
Been looking through Monk, and Open Hand Technique seems really weak compared to other classes getting Ki Blast and Spells.
They used to get Disorienting Strike, Knockback Kick and Sweeping Strike for free. Now its a much weaker version of Disorienting Strike(at-will/no ki/self only), and Wis to initiative.
At level 2, 5, 9, 13, 17, when other traditions get access to new spells, Open Hand gets nothing. Kensai gets access to more weapons, and Drunk Master starts off with more interesting/slightly stronger abilities.
Am I missing something?

Kryx
2018-04-30, 08:23 AM
By their very nature martial characters will get less than spellcasters. Compare a Fighter vs a Wizard for example. On one end you have a mundane and simple class on the other you have one of the most complex classes. A Fighter will never be able to achieve the same things that a Wizard can. The ability to boost a Fighter is generally limited to combat with the ideas of exploration and social aspects better suited in other classes. It's unfortunate and I'd like to change that, but that's the reality of D&D.

A martial monk and a spellcasting monk has similar problems. What do you give a martial monk so that it can compete with spellcasting?

Though lets compare Kensi vs Open Hand:

Level 1
Kensei: Martial Weapons (Quarterstaff does 1d8 so the damage doesn't increase. +Wis to init.
OH: No OAs from attacked enemies. +Wis to init

Level 3
Kensei: 4 ki features for combat, Maneuvering Strike and Riposte being shared with OH.
OH: 3 ki features for combat. Crippling is quite strong - keep in mind a monk could use this on multiple enemies

Level 6
Kensei: Fighting Stance
OH: Reaction to halve damage

Level 10
Kensei: Ki to add bonuses to hit and damage
OH: Stunning Strike

Level 14
Kensei: Hit if you miss
OH: Ki to do lots of damage

Kensei gaining extra weapons has no mechanical benefit.

As far as I can see the two martial subclasses are comparable. Drunken martial looks quite similar.

Ugganaut
2018-04-30, 09:42 AM
I haven't looked at Kensei to much, no interest in playing one, but it does look very weak. I'm just not sure what the access to some weapons could do, as there is the solid limit with the two-handed property. Hand Crossbow? At least that increases the ranged effectiveness of the martial monk I guess.

Drunken Master: Prof in improved weapons is flavour. The other two are really interesting. Bonus action grapple, or free disengage if you go all out attack(Flurry of Blows) with an increase to speed.

1. "During your turn, if you make a melee weapon attack against a creature, that creature canít make opportunity attacks against you for the rest of your turn." is weaker than....
2. Disengage. is weaker than....
3. "The target canít take reactions until the end of its next turn."

Open Hand: It gets 1, which is like half the Mobile feat but without the movement. Drunken Master gets Disengage for free(costs other monks 1ki via Step of the Wind), and the +10 spd.

Every monk gets Disorienting Strike, Knockback Kick, Patient Defense, Step of the Wind, Sweeping Strike. OH should be better at the basic martial stuff imo. It needs ways to either do it for free, free under certain conditions, more reliable at it, and/or more potent.

eg
* Once per turn, when you use Disorienting Strike, it doesn't cost ki.
* Sweeping Strike only cost you 1 ki.
* When you use Knockback Kick, the target has disadvantage on the Reflex saving throw, and the distance you can push them is up to 20ft.
* You can add your Wisdom modifier to your initiative rolls. If you get the highest initiative, you can use Step of the Wind as a bonus action for free on your first turn.

or
* When you use Disorienting Strike, Knockback Kick, Patient Defense or Step of the Wind, it does not cost ki. You can use this Wis times per short rest.

Kryx
2018-04-30, 09:57 AM
I haven't looked at Kensei to much
You just compared the Open Hand Monk to the Kensei above, saying that it was weaker. It seems what you meant is that martial monks are weaker than spellcasting monks.


Every monk gets Disorienting Strike, Knockback Kick, Patient Defense, Step of the Wind, Sweeping Strike.
Every monk is a capable martial artist, yes.


OH should be better at the basic martial stuff imo. It needs ways to either do it for free, free under certain conditions, more reliable at it, and/or more potent.
OH Monks are better at basic martial stuff. They have 3+ ki features allowing them to excel at combat whereas spellcasting monks have ki to cast spells.


* Once per turn, when you use Disorienting Strike, it doesn't cost ki.
Disorienting Strike doesn't cost ki.


* Sweeping Strike only cost you 1 ki.
Knocking an opponent prone is a huge benefit in a melee based group. For example it could offer you and your allies advantage on all attacks until the creatures turn. Or you could grapple the creature, effectively pinning it.
These type of abilities are like spells in that a Wizard doesn't spend less mana to cast spells than a Warlock. The same is true here: these abilities have set costs. The benefit should be weighed against that cost.


* When you use Knockback Kick, the target has disadvantage on the Reflex saving throw, and the distance you can push them is up to 20ft.
See above about set costs.


If you get the highest initiative, you can use Step of the Wind as a bonus action for free on your first turn.
Not a bad idea, but it's very minor. Also first round abilities can easily be gamed or complained about. "I'm sticking back to avoid initiative", etc. I believe that is why they are nearly non-existant in 5e.


* When you use Disorienting Strike, Knockback Kick, Patient Defense or Step of the Wind, it does not cost ki. You can use this Wis times per short rest.
Spellcasting monks have the ability to cast spells without mana as class features. If a martial monk has such a feature then they'd lose a feature that they currently have.

Ugganaut
2018-04-30, 11:26 AM
You just compared the Open Hand Monk to the Kensei above, saying that it was weaker. It seems what you meant is that martial monks are weaker than spellcasting monks.
Yes. Although Drunken Master doesn't bother me so much, it looks really fun to play from level 1, and Drunken Technique looks pretty good. You get free disengage(+10spd) every round you use Flurry, so you can wobble around any battlefield all day long and it doesn't cost you a single ki.
Kensei, at first glance, looks really weak. I'm not completely sure, because I haven't looked into to deeply. Maybe there is good talent support due to weapon choices, I don't know. I lost interest after I saw they can't use heavy weapons, ever, which is the only reason I could see to take Kensei(the monks that use the big polearms). One with the Blade looks like a level 1 fighter feature, but requires an action instead of a bonus action to switch stances - so worse.
Open Hand seems like the generic hand-to-hand expert(all real world styles rolled into one), but its Open Hand Technique is underwhelming.



OH Monks are better at basic martial stuff. They have 3+ ki features allowing them to excel at combat whereas spellcasting monks have ki to cast spells.
I think I'm a bit lost here. How are OH monks better at basic martial stuff? "Every monk is a capable martial artist, yes." They are all equal. Ki features aren't till level 3, that' s the more advanced stuff. I have no issue there, martials have martial ones, others have spell type ones, some have a mix. It's the level 1 stuff that looks weak, specifically in OH(and maybe Kensei, I'm not sure on that one as I said).


Disorienting Strike doesn't cost ki.
It's at this point I realized I was reading the wrong document. I'm going through the last one before the theme spells modifications(around 4 weeks ago), I didn't think to check the non-casters and monks.


Knocking an opponent prone is a huge benefit in a melee based group. [...]The same is true here: these abilities have set costs. The benefit should be weighed against that cost.
Normally, if you want to Disengage as a bonus action, you have to use Step of the Wind and spend 1 ki. The Drunken Master can use Disengage(+10spd) for free every round as long as he's using Flurry). So it has a set cost, but that cost is suspended. In this case, its as long as a very easy prerequisite is met each round. The Drunken Master is hard to pin down, so this is perfect mechanics imo, he's extremely mobile.
Whatever the strengths of the Open Hand are, they should be reflected and amplified in the level 1 OH Technique. That's what I was trying to do, but clearly failing miserably.
I'm not really sure what the strengths of the Open Hand are. The description just says masters whether armed or unarmed. There's no real style, like Drunken Master. If it was Tiger style, or Crane style etc, they have specific things they are good at. Open Hand seems to be the generic term for all martial styles that haven't been made up(Drunk and Kensei).
So maybe, as a master of all, you could have a list of 6 options, and you could choose one at 1, 2, 5, 9, 13, 17. Some offense, defensive, utility, representing different styles that you master as you go up. Just thoughts.

Maybe the martials should get a level 17 feature somewhere too - another option to spend ki. The base class gets nothing, but the casters get access to their strongest spell options.

Ugganaut
2018-04-30, 09:52 PM
A stance/style approach could be one solution. I tried to do one up, it's a bit rough of course.

Open Hand Technique
When you choose this tradition at 1st level, you master one of the following fighting styles. You master another at levels 2, 5, 9, 13 and 17.
As a bonus action on your turn, you can enter the stance for one style you know, that lasts until you enter the stance of another style.
Monkey style: While in this stance, you can take the Disengage action as a bonus action.
Crane style: While in this stance, when you use your action to take the dodge action, you also gain the benefit of the disengage action.
Tiger style: While in this stance, when you roll your martial arts damage dice for an unarmed strike, you can roll one extra die and discard the lowest of the two dice.
Leopard style: While in this stance, your unarmed attacks can score a critical hit on a natural 19 or 20. If you do score a critical hit, the target can not make opportunity attacks until the start of itís next turn.
Snake style: While in this stance, you have advantage to hit creatures who have attacked you with disadvantage since the end of your last turn. Also, once on your turn when you take the Attack action, you can make a Charisma(Deception) check opposed by the targets Wisdom(Insight). If you succeed, you have advantage on the first attack roll you make against the target this turn.
Mantis style: While in this stance, your reach for your unarmed strikes is 10 feet.
Dragon style(Prerequisite: 17th level monk): While in this stance, you can adopt the benefits of any two styles you know. You can change which two styles you adopt as a bonus action on your turn.


Another approach, could be an option to spend ki at 1, 2, 5, 9, 13, 17, equal to the same amount as spells at those levels, so increasingly more powerful. I didn't have many ideas on that(Stunning Strike would be a good option), so I tried to whip up the stance idea :) Again, the above probably isn't balanced, I'm trying to present the idea of styles/stances as a way to improve options as you increase level.

Edit: Again, that "1, 2, 5, 9, 13, 17" is from the pre-theme version of the system. You get the idea though.

Kryx
2018-05-01, 10:18 AM
Lets compare Burning Cinders vs Open Hand:

Level 1
Burning Cinders:: Ki blast. 1 Cantrip.
OH: No OAs from attacked enemies. +Wis to init

Comparison: Balanced. Relatively minor features in the grand scheme of things.

Level 3
Burning Cinders:: Can use its 3 ki to cast fire theme spells, with a limit of 1 ki per spell. Fangs of the fire snake is a reach and damage boost for 1 turn. Searing Arc Strike sacrifices Flurry for Burning hands
OH: Can use its 3 ki to use its 3 ki features for combat. Crippling is quite strong - keep in mind a monk could use this on multiple enemies.

Comparison: Balanced. Burning cinders can cast a few spells, but their power is quite limited. The spells also come at the cost of attacking which does quite a bit of damage. Ki features are surely in the favor of OH.

Level 6
Burning Cinders:: 1 ki to cause enemies to burn. 6 ki to spend on spells, though still limited to 1 mana.
OH: Reaction to halve damage. 6 ki to spend on ki features.

Comparison: Balanced. Nearly the same comparison as level 3 with OH getting better class features to make up for Burning Cinder's slight versatility lead.

Level 10
Burning Cinders:: Fireball (will possibly need to be replaced). 10 ki to spend on spells, though limited to 2 mana.
OH: Stunning Strike (will need its cost rebalanced with the new mana system). 10 ki to spend on ki features.

Comparison: Balanced. Burning cinders is looking a bit better with access to 2 mana spells. However stunning strike should be quite useful once I rebalance the cost (probably to 2). A stun has a huge impact on a round as the creature can't do anything and attacks have advantage.

Level 14
Burning Cinders:: Fire Aspect has a permanent 5 ft aoe for 1d10 and boosts fire spells. 15 ki to spend on spells, though limited to 2 mana.
OH: Ki to do lots of damage (Ki cost needs to be rebalanced). 15 ki to spend on ki features.

Comparison: Balanced. Burning Cinders can have a great encounter with Fire Aspect, though Quivering Palm can do a number on a solo boss.


Overall Comparison: Overall I believe the limitation of 1 theme on spellcasters keeps them in check with the martial subclasses. The features are quite comparable imo, especially since the spellcasters split their ki between ki features and spells while the martials use all of their ki on ki features. It's a trade of versatility (often AoE) vs reliable and effective options for the martial subclasses.

It seems you have no fully compared the two subclasses. Please do a more complete comparison before raising your balance concerns in the future.


Some specific replies:

level 1 stuff that looks weak
Level 1 features of all subclasses are very minimal. That's true for martial and spellcasting Monk subclasses, every Mage subclass, and every Rogue subclass. Please keep the whole system in mind when raising concerns.


The Drunken Master can use Disengage(+10spd) for free every round as long as he's using Flurry)
Flurry assumes the Drunken Master isn't uising Burning Hands, Dodge action, or a bonus action from another class via multiclass. It'll be most rounds, but isn't to be assumed. The ability to avoid OAs is covered by other monks via Disorienting Strike.


Maybe the martials should get a level 17 feature somewhere too - another option to spend ki. The base class gets nothing, but the casters get access to their strongest spell options.
Please see the comparison above. Martials are not behind. Additionally subclasses have been moving toward and will be solidified on fully comparable progressions. Meaning they will all gain features at the same levels.


A stance/style approach could be one solution.
A solution to a problem that doesn't exist. You're after more flavor, but what features does the OH give up to get these stances? The options you've suggested are quite strong and would require the removal of features like Uncanny Dodge and possibly another.

Ugganaut
2018-05-02, 01:46 AM
Lets compare Burning Cinders vs Open Hand:

It seems you have no fully compared the two subclasses. Please do a more complete comparison before raising your balance concerns in the future.
I don't know how. When comparing spending 1 ki on Crippling Strike(OH), or on Scorching Ray(BC), I don't understand how value is assigned. One is melee only, but has a strong effect that you can't save against. The other has a range of 120ft, can hit up to 3 targets. Fireball has a large area of effect. I don't know what value to get range, no save effects, size of AoE. I'm just guessing. You're much smarter than I am. Not much I can do about that sorry. I'm not trying to piss you off.


A martial monk and a spellcasting monk has similar problems. What do you give a martial monk so that it can compete with spellcasting?
This is why I tried to present an idea that gave more options, you shut me down.


A solution to a problem that doesn't exist. You're after more flavor, but what features does the OH give up to get these stances? The options you've suggested are quite strong and would require the removal of features like Uncanny Dodge and possibly another.
I was presenting an idea. I said it was rough. You're aware I'm not good at the balance stuff, so I present the idea to you, as you are good at the balance stuff. If the idea isn't good, so be it.
Is more flavour bad? Is the stance option bad? Obviously the substance of each option is bad, but I'm sure you could balance that out. I was just trying to present an idea. I thought it was an interesting idea that could bring more flavor and options over time, to a bland start to a subclass(OH already has Disorientating Strike like all monks, as you mentioned for Drunken Master). Stances would allow choices over time, but only one at a time(with Dragon being an option if it ever became appropriate to have two at once like fighter stances). To change, you'd have to give up Flurry for the round. If each option was a little strong, you could remove the +wis to Init. But if it was so strong that you'd have to change the other class features, then I agree, its not a good idea.
I'm sure stance options could be made that equal but don't exceed the total power of the current Open Hand Technique benefits, thereby giving the class increased options over time, but only one active at a time.

Kryx
2018-05-02, 10:58 AM
I don't know how. When comparing spending 1 ki on Crippling Strike(OH), or on Scorching Ray(BC), I don't understand how value is assigned. One is melee only, but has a strong effect that you can't save against. The other has a range of 120ft, can hit up to 3 targets.
A level 1 Monk with a quarterstaff does about 9 DPR (https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1sGvcz9vbq9yk4kRBEY6ZYGWhGO6-t7CWudznQcWPk74/edit#gid=1470229917).
A 1 mana scorching ray does 4d4 (pdf is outdated). 4d4 = 10 damage * .65 = 6.5 damage, though it can crit so 6.8 damage. It also has some range which weights the damage to about 9.4 damage.

So at level 1 attacking with unarmed strikes is comparable to a Scorching Ray after you consider range.

Level 3 the monk does 13 DPR while Scorching Ray stays the same. Level 5 is 24 DPR. It's quite hard for spells to compete here actually. I'll need to consider how to change this - probably a spell as a bonus action as the other martial classes have.


Fireball has a large area of effect. I don't know what value to get range, no save effects, size of AoE.
At level 9 when a Monk can cast fireball the monk does 24 DPR. Fireball does 5d6 = 17.5 damage * .55 = 9.9 + (17.5/2)*.45 = 13.5 damage to each target. That's a decent trade if you hit enough creatures. Thoguh at level 11 the monk goes up to 37 DPR so the trade is less good then. Though perhaps the bonus action I mention above can remedy the situation.


I'm just guessing. You're much smarter than I am. Not much I can do about that sorry. I'm not trying to piss you off.
Don't sell yourself short. You can figure out general damage numbers. Then just multiply attacks by about .65. Saves you multiply by .55 and then multiple half damage by .45.


This is why I tried to present an idea that gave more options, you shut me down.
Ideas need to be rooted in understanding the current system and analyzing how the change would impact that. The ideas don't need to be perfect, but an idea has very little value without some measure of understanding and analysis.


Is more flavour bad? Is the stance option bad? Obviously the substance of each option is bad, but I'm sure you could balance that out. I was just trying to present an idea. I thought it was an interesting idea that could bring more flavor and options over time, to a bland start to a subclass(OH already has Disorientating Strike like all monks, as you mentioned for Drunken Master). Stances would allow choices over time, but only one at a time(with Dragon being an option if it ever became appropriate to have two at once like fighter stances). To change, you'd have to give up Flurry for the round. If each option was a little strong, you could remove the +wis to Init. But if it was so strong that you'd have to change the other class features, then I agree, its not a good idea.
I'm sure stance options could be made that equal but don't exceed the total power of the current Open Hand Technique benefits, thereby giving the class increased options over time, but only one active at a time.
Flavor is not bad, every class should have flavor. OH should probably be more flavorful, but it's difficult to dive in to the details of a subclass when the whole system is in flux. The whole system needs to be stable before I can start considering individual subclasses and their balance level.

In this case you has a presupposition that martials were weaker than spellcasters. After analysis that was shown to be the opposite situation. An OH monk could use more flavor, but you have to consider the subclass as a whole as it compares to other Monk subclasses and how those compare to other Classes and their subclasses. For example Uncanny dodge could move to the Monk class which adds more flavor there and opens up room for features in OH, though that has to be considered across all classes. That could work if I add more features to each base class.

Ugganaut
2018-05-02, 11:33 AM
This was my second pass at the stance idea, trying to tone it down a lot.

Open Hand Technique
When you choose this tradition at 1st level, you can take the Dash action as a bonus action on your first turn each combat.
Also, you learn the basic techniques of one of the six known fighting styles.
You learn another style at levels 2, 5, 9, 13 and 17.
As a bonus action on your turn, you can enter the stance of one style you know, that lasts until you enter the stance of another style you know.
Monkey style: While in this stance, if you make a melee weapon attack against a creature during your turn, that creature canít make opportunity attacks against you for the rest of your turn.
Crane style: While in this stance, when you take the dodge action, you also gain the benefits of the disengage action.
Tiger style: While in this stance, the first time you hit a target with an unarmed strike or monk weapon on your turn, you roll an extra damage die, and discard the lowest of the two dice. You also gain this benefit using your Flurry of Blows.
Snake style: While in this stance, once on your turn before taking the Attack action, you can make a Manipulation check opposed by the targets Insight check. If you succeed, the next melee weapon attack you make against the target this turn has advantage, as well as your Flurry of Blows this turn.
Mantis style: While in this stance, as a bonus action, you can increase your reach for melee weapon attacks to 10 feet this turn.
Dragon style(Prerequisite: 17th level Monk): While in this stance, you can adopt the benefits of any two styles you know. You can change which two styles you adopt as a bonus action on your turn.

How do you put value on things like this. Numbers is one thing, but reach on melee attacks, increased crit range for 1 attack per turn? The goal is to have them balanced against Monkey(the first of the OH abilities). That way you gain variety, not a spike in power per stance.
I thought it was a decent idea, given that there aren't many martial subtypes that refer to the old MA styles. OH seemed like a good home for a "master of styles", while the other martials focused on weapons or alcohol :)

Uncanny Dodge would fit in the monk base class in terms of flavor.

But you're right, hard to do any balancing at all when its all up in the air.

Edit: Updated to the latest version after you mentioned its a bit weak.

Giegue
2018-05-02, 07:40 PM
The new version looks AWESOME I must say. I am already dying to make a Charisma-based Death Domain Cleric who specializes in the life, death and undeath themes! (pun totally intended) Now I just want a chance to play with these rules. I do plan on giving them a spin as a GM for my friends, using them to run my Japanese mythology-inspired dystopian epic fantasy setting with them. While not the same as, you know, being a player under them, I will let you know how it plays once I complete a session or two with it.