Rogue Archetype - Demolitionist. Need help finishing up.

[Snig]

https://www.docdroid.net/EL03Wmb/demolitionist.pdf.html

I think I got a good start, but I'm having a hard time deciding on features at 9th, 13th and 17th. I'm looking to you guys for inspiration or ideas. I'm thinking on something at 9th level that will increase my damage resistance because of my time spent around explosions (similar to the toughness feat). At 13th, I thought about adding an effect to the explosions such as stun, or knockdown. and I don't know about a capstone yet.

Please let me know what you think.

[Final Hyena]

Why do you need to be hidden to set a bomb?

An alternative might be to make setting a bomb provoke aoo's.

[Snig]

Why do you need to be hidden to set a bomb?

An alternative might be to make setting a bomb provoke aoo's.

I kind of thought that bombs would usually be set up outside of combat, but i'm still working on balance.

[Final Hyena]

You could make it impractical to set up in combat. Say if it took 2 turns (or the previously mentioned aoo).

That way it doesn't disappear for no reason, it can still be done, but it's a rather questionable tactic.

[Snig]

You could make it impractical to set up in combat. Say if it took 2 turns (or the previously mentioned aoo).

That way it doesn't disappear for no reason, it can still be done, but it's a rather questionable tactic.

Well I kind of thought requiring stealth would make it a little more difficult to do in combat. Also it seems to make sense to have to be hidden to plant an explosive? Rogues could use their bonus action to hide and then plant an explosive on their next turn?

[Snig]

Ok i've made a few changes, hopefully making him more useful in combat. I'm really trying to strike a balance here with other official archetypes. If any of you have any suggestions about balance or formatting. Please feel free.

https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B-J...ew?usp=sharing

[Llama513]

Just checking on the damage for the bomb, is it half is bludgeoning and half is piericing, or is it double your normal sneak attack damage, with it being sneak attack damage of each type

[Snig]

Just checking on the damage for the bomb, is it half is bludgeoning and half is piericing, or is it double your normal sneak attack damage, with it being sneak attack damage of each type

It's your regular SA Damage, only the damage type is both bludgeoning AND piercing. I did this to represent the explosion itself ( bludgeoning damage) and the sharpnel. I believe the morning star weapon at some point had both damage types as well.

I was going to use force or thunder damage, but in the DMG, under explosives, most damage is listed as either bludgeoning, piercing or fire.

[Llama513]

It's your regular SA Damage, only the damage type is both bludgeoning AND piercing. I did this to represent the explosion itself ( bludgeoning damage) and the sharpnel. I believe the morning star weapon at some point had both damage types as well.

I was going to use force or thunder damage, but in the DMG, under explosives, most damage is listed as either bludgeoning, piercing or fire.

Okay thanks for clarifying, I love what you are doing by the way this looks like it is going to be a lot of fun

[Arkhios]

There is no precedency for damage that has two types at the same time. If you want your sub-class to have any consistency with the existing rules, you'd do well to have the damage be either bludgeoning or piercing, half bludgeoning and half piercing, or just fire.

In terms of objects breaking from damage, 5th edition doesn't make a difference between damage types which one is most effective, and against creatures - if they have resistance to one of non-magical bludgeoning, piercing, or slashing, they most likely have the other two as well.

You could maybe come up with a list of options for different kinds of explosions.
Bludgeoning is crushing damage, so it makes sense as the one which breaks things, and maybe knocks back and/or prone (e.g. dynamite)
Piercing bores holes into the target, and causes internal bleeding. (e.g. frag grenade)
Slashing causes gaping and gushing wounds, and likely bleeding as well (e.g. spinning shrapnels)
Fire burns and sets flammable objects on fire. (e.g. infernal fire storm)

I think there is a bleeding mechanism somewhere, and even if there isn't it could be homebrewed fairly easily.

[Snig]

There is no precedency for damage that has two types at the same time. If you want your sub-class to have any consistency with the existing rules, you'd do well to have the damage be either bludgeoning or piercing, half bludgeoning and half piercing, or just fire.

In terms of objects breaking from damage, 5th edition doesn't make a difference between damage types which one is most effective, and against creatures - if they have resistance to one of non-magical bludgeoning, piercing, or slashing, they most likely have the other two as well.

You could maybe come up with a list of options for different kinds of explosions.
Bludgeoning is crushing damage, so it makes sense as the one which breaks things, and maybe knocks back and/or prone (e.g. dynamite)
Piercing bores holes into the target, and causes internal bleeding. (e.g. frag grenade)
Slashing causes gaping and gushing wounds, and likely bleeding as well (e.g. spinning shrapnels)
Fire burns and sets flammable objects on fire. (e.g. infernal fire storm)

I think there is a bleeding mechanism somewhere, and even if there isn't it could be homebrewed fairly easily.

I had those options in an original draft, but I thought I'd scrap them in favor of simplicity. I may reconsider. Thanks for the suggestion on damage type. I'll likely change it to half and half.

[Llama513]

I think that having it as a choice for the damage type be to bad as something you choose when you make the bombs, yes it adds a little bit of complexity, but that would simply be in keeping track of what kind of bombs you had made, and which one you placed, something that already exists in the form of usable items