Page 2 of 9 FirstFirst 123456789 LastLast
Results 31 to 60 of 267
  1. - Top - End - #31
    Ogre in the Playground
     
    Kryx's Avatar

    Join Date
    Nov 2013

    Default Re: Structural Class Changes (Mana, Talents, Clear gish structure)

    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.

  2. - Top - End - #32
    Orc in the Playground
    Join Date
    Sep 2016

    Default Re: Structural Class Changes (Mana, Talents, Clear gish structure)

    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.

  3. - Top - End - #33
    Ogre in the Playground
     
    Kryx's Avatar

    Join Date
    Nov 2013

    Default Re: Structural Class Changes (Mana, Talents, Clear gish structure)

    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.

  4. - Top - End - #34
    Orc in the Playground
    Join Date
    Sep 2016

    Default Re: Structural Class Changes (Mana, Talents, Clear gish structure)

    Quote Originally Posted by Kryx View Post
    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.

    Quote Originally Posted by Kryx View Post
    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.

    Quote Originally Posted by Kryx View Post
    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.

  5. - Top - End - #35
    Ogre in the Playground
     
    Kryx's Avatar

    Join Date
    Nov 2013

    Default Re: Structural Class Changes (Mana, Talents, Clear gish structure)

    Quote Originally Posted by Ugganaut View Post
    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.

    Quote Originally Posted by Ugganaut View Post
    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.

  6. - Top - End - #36
    Orc in the Playground
    Join Date
    Sep 2016

    Default Re: Structural Class Changes (Mana, Talents, Clear gish structure)

    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 :)

  7. - Top - End - #37
    Ogre in the Playground
     
    Kryx's Avatar

    Join Date
    Nov 2013

    Default Re: Structural Class Changes (Mana, Talents, Clear gish structure)

    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.

  8. - Top - End - #38
    Orc in the Playground
    Join Date
    Sep 2016

    Default Re: Structural Class Changes (Mana, Talents, Clear gish structure)

    That's above my pay grade :)

  9. - Top - End - #39
    Halfling in the Playground
     
    Terra Reveene's Avatar

    Join Date
    Dec 2016

    Default Re: Structural Class Changes (Mana, Talents, Clear gish structure)

    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?

  10. - Top - End - #40
    Ogre in the Playground
     
    Kryx's Avatar

    Join Date
    Nov 2013

    Default Re: Structural Class Changes (Mana, Talents, Clear gish structure)

    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.

  11. - Top - End - #41
    Ogre in the Playground
     
    Kryx's Avatar

    Join Date
    Nov 2013

    Default Re: Structural Class Changes (Mana, Talents, Clear gish structure)

    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 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.
    • 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.

  12. - Top - End - #42
    Pixie in the Playground
     
    RedWizardGuy

    Join Date
    Nov 2017

    Default Re: Structural Class Changes (Mana, Talents, Clear gish structure)

    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.

  13. - Top - End - #43
    Ogre in the Playground
     
    Kryx's Avatar

    Join Date
    Nov 2013

    Default Re: Structural Class Changes (Mana, Talents, Clear gish structure)

    Quote Originally Posted by Amondin View Post
    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.

    Quote Originally Posted by Amondin View Post
    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.

    Quote Originally Posted by Amondin View Post
    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.

    Quote Originally Posted by Amondin View Post
    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.

    Quote Originally Posted by Amondin View Post
    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.

    Quote Originally Posted by Amondin View Post
    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.

    Quote Originally Posted by Amondin View Post
    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

    Quote Originally Posted by Amondin View Post
    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.

    Quote Originally Posted by Amondin View Post
    typo under "Forewarned" that says it is gained at 14th instead of 10th level.
    Fixed

    Quote Originally Posted by Amondin View Post
    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.

    Quote Originally Posted by Amondin View Post
    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.

  14. - Top - End - #44
    Pixie in the Playground
     
    RedWizardGuy

    Join Date
    Nov 2017

    Default Re: Structural Class Changes (Mana, Talents, Clear gish structure)

    Quote Originally Posted by Kryx View Post
    Eldritch Sense (same as Arcane Sense) replaces Arcane / Psychic Sense and Eldritch Sight. Either Mage, Occultist, or Psionicist can take it.
    Sounds good!

    Quote Originally Posted by Kryx View Post
    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.

    Quote Originally Posted by Kryx View Post
    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.

    Quote Originally Posted by Kryx View Post
    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.

    Quote Originally Posted by Kryx View Post
    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.

    Quote Originally Posted by Kryx View Post
    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.

    Quote Originally Posted by Kryx View Post
    +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?

    Quote Originally Posted by Kryx View Post
    Treantmonk disagrees
    Fair enough.

    Quote Originally Posted by Kryx View Post
    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.

    Quote Originally Posted by Kryx View Post
    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.

    Quote Originally Posted by Kryx View Post
    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.

  15. - Top - End - #45
    Orc in the Playground
     
    PirateCaptain

    Join Date
    Dec 2016

    Default Re: Structural Class Changes (Mana, Talents, Clear gish structure)

    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.

  16. - Top - End - #46
    Orc in the Playground
    Join Date
    Sep 2016

    Default Re: Structural Class Changes (Mana, Talents, Clear gish structure)

    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.

  17. - Top - End - #47
    Ogre in the Playground
     
    Kryx's Avatar

    Join Date
    Nov 2013

    Default Re: Structural Class Changes (Mana, Talents, Clear gish structure)

    Quote Originally Posted by Amondin View Post
    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.

    Quote Originally Posted by Amondin View Post
    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.

    Quote Originally Posted by Amondin View Post
    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.

    Quote Originally Posted by Amondin View Post
    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.

    Quote Originally Posted by Amondin View Post
    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.


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


    Quote Originally Posted by Saiga View Post
    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.


    Spoiler: changed thoughts
    Show
    Quote Originally Posted by Ugganaut View Post
    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.

    Quote Originally Posted by Ugganaut View Post
    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.

    Quote Originally Posted by Ugganaut View Post
    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.

    Quote Originally Posted by Ugganaut View Post
    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.

  18. - Top - End - #48
    Orc in the Playground
     
    PirateCaptain

    Join Date
    Dec 2016

    Default Re: Structural Class Changes (Mana, Talents, Clear gish structure)

    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.

  19. - Top - End - #49
    Ogre in the Playground
     
    Kryx's Avatar

    Join Date
    Nov 2013

    Default Re: Structural Class Changes (Mana, Talents, Clear gish structure)

    Quote Originally Posted by Saiga View Post
    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.

  20. - Top - End - #50
    Orc in the Playground
    Join Date
    Sep 2016

    Default Re: Structural Class Changes (Mana, Talents, Clear gish structure)

    Quote Originally Posted by Kryx View Post
    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.

    Quote Originally Posted by Kryx View Post
    "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.

    Quote Originally Posted by Kryx View Post
    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.

    Quote Originally Posted by Kryx View Post
    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.

    Quote Originally Posted by Kryx View Post
    "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 :)

    Quote Originally Posted by Kryx View Post
    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.

    Quote Originally Posted by Kryx View Post
    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.

  21. - Top - End - #51
    Ogre in the Playground
     
    Kryx's Avatar

    Join Date
    Nov 2013

    Default Re: Structural Class Changes (Mana, Talents, Clear gish structure)

    Quote Originally Posted by Ugganaut View Post
    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.

  22. - Top - End - #52
    Orc in the Playground
     
    PirateCaptain

    Join Date
    Dec 2016

    Default Re: Structural Class Changes (Mana, Talents, Clear gish structure)

    Quote Originally Posted by Kryx View Post
    +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.

  23. - Top - End - #53
    Ogre in the Playground
     
    Kryx's Avatar

    Join Date
    Nov 2013

    Default Re: Structural Class Changes (Mana, Talents, Clear gish structure)

    Quote Originally Posted by Saiga View Post
    Since it costs 1,500 GP, there's not much chance of getting it before level 8 anyway.
    http://www.enworld.org/forum/showthr...ealth-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.

    Quote Originally Posted by Saiga View Post
    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.

    Quote Originally Posted by Saiga View Post
    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:
    1. It's a half feat.
    2. 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.

  24. - Top - End - #54
    Orc in the Playground
     
    PirateCaptain

    Join Date
    Dec 2016

    Default Re: Structural Class Changes (Mana, Talents, Clear gish structure)

    If you're going to call someone's criticism incorrect then there's nothing more I can add.

  25. - Top - End - #55
    Ogre in the Playground
     
    Kryx's Avatar

    Join Date
    Nov 2013

    Default Re: Structural Class Changes (Mana, Talents, Clear gish structure)

    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.

  26. - Top - End - #56
    Ogre in the Playground
     
    Kryx's Avatar

    Join Date
    Nov 2013

    Default Re: Structural Class Changes (Mana, Talents, Clear gish structure)

    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

  27. - Top - End - #57
    Orc in the Playground
    Join Date
    Sep 2016

    Default Re: Structural Class Changes (Mana, Talents, Clear gish structure)

    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

  28. - Top - End - #58
    Ogre in the Playground
     
    Kryx's Avatar

    Join Date
    Nov 2013

    Default Re: Structural Class Changes (Mana, Talents, Clear gish structure)

    Quote Originally Posted by Ugganaut View Post
    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.

    Quote Originally Posted by Ugganaut View Post
    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.

    Quote Originally Posted by Ugganaut View Post
    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.

    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.

    Quote Originally Posted by Ugganaut View Post
    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.

  29. - Top - End - #59
    Orc in the Playground
    Join Date
    Sep 2016

    Default Re: Structural Class Changes (Mana, Talents, Clear gish structure)

    Looking at the DPR table brings home the limit of my intelligence Looks like "accuracy" plays a decent part, and advantage to attack rolls as well.
    I'll trust your math

    Where are the links to your spells and races docs?

  30. - Top - End - #60
    Ogre in the Playground
     
    Kryx's Avatar

    Join Date
    Nov 2013

    Default Re: Structural Class Changes (Mana, Talents, Clear gish structure)

    Quote Originally Posted by Ugganaut View Post
    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.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •