Structural Class Changes (Mana, Talents, Clear gish structure)

[Kryx]

I'm thinking of removing the Minstrel class. I believe it is a very small concept that has been bloated with things that don't really add much value.

I've experimented with moving the Skald into a Warrior subclass and it looks quite ok. It keeps Jack of All Trades and Bardic Performance (renamed Drums of War) and Bolstering Presence.

If those are removed from Minstrel there really isn't much left:

• a level 20 feature to gain 1 Bardic Performance
• Spells. I've never been a fan of 9th level spells for Bard by RAW. A Warrior spellless version fits much better for Skald at least. I don't see Bard as a solid base for spellcasting.
• Bladesinging (covered by Dervish)
• Colleges (all quite lacking besides Lore which could be added to Mage)

I may have some kind of bard subclass for Rogue as well. That combined with Spell Thief pretty much covers the rest of the Minstrel's identity.


Thoughts?

[Marcloure]

Bards are people whose songs and words are magic, and they say music can alter the someone's mood and create wonderful things. I think that is a neat idea, the guy in the tavern playing an instrument and enchanting people is classical, then we have the Pied Piper of Hamelin, the metalheads and sadistic theater of the Cult of Rakdos, and the drummers of war.

Indeed, you could break the Minstrel and give the battle leader part to the Warrior, the mocking/keen mouth part to the Rogue, and the study of music and "magic as art/art as music" part to the Mage. You could also give some sort of musical thing to the Incanter, but that would overload the class I guess.

That could work, but I am not sure how that improves the system. Instead of having a class that do music and subclasses that say how it does music, you would have classes that do things and subclasses that say they do things through music.

Well, you could also drop the whole "magic as music" stuff and let it go to the realm of flavor, but I don't think that turning a way of doing things purely into flavor is an improvement. In the end, it would only be a reduction on how a character can mechanically do things.

=======

Now, I do think that the Minstrel (especially the Bard) needs some work. It has two features, one of which is very passive. It could benefit from more flavorful features related to songs, story-telling, and performance overall.

Alternatively, you could make the Bard a half-caster and give it a bunch of other non-martial features. It would make it the first class like that, so I am not sure about how this would turn out.

[Kryx]

Let me lay out my thoughts:

"magic as music" shouldn't exist. I don't buy in to the concept and I would find the concept of a leader type class far more compelling if the aspects of the bard are absorbed by other classes. Part of this is because the Bard has historically been more of a troll class with memes of people playing music in war zones. Another part is the rejection of powerful magic from a bard.

The concept is pretty small in origin: a person who can cast spells and play music. That concept is a fine concept. It is a fine concept as a background or a fine concept for subclass options for other classes. It doesn't have enough identity to fulfill a whole class imo and does not have enough strength to cast 9th level spells.
The Pied Piper is just as easily using a musical instrument as a spell focus. It's just a normal charm spell.

That could work, but I am not sure how that improves the system. Instead of having a class that do music and subclasses that say how it does music, you would have classes that do things and subclasses that say they do things through music.

Well, you could also drop the whole "magic as music" stuff and let it go to the realm of flavor, but I don't think that turning a way of doing things purely into flavor is an improvement. In the end, it would only be a reduction on how a character can mechanically do things.

I think the class as it currently is limits characters. I'm not a fan of its flavor and would be much happier to see the concept in a better home.

[Garfunion]

Let me lay out my thoughts:

"magic as music" shouldn't exist. I don't buy in to the concept and I would find the concept of a leader type class far more compelling if the aspects of the bard are absorbed by other classes. Part of this is because the Bard has historically been more of a troll class with memes of people playing music in war zones. Another part is the rejection of powerful magic from a bard.

The concept is pretty small in origin: a person who can cast spells and play music. That concept is a fine concept. It is a fine concept as a background or a fine concept for subclass options for other classes. It doesn't have enough identity to fulfill a whole class imo and does not have enough strength to cast 9th level spells.
The Pied Piper is just as easily using a musical instrument as a spell focus. It's just a normal charm spell.


I think the class as it currently is limits characters. I'm not a fan of its flavor and would be much happier to see the concept in a better home.

I couldn’t agree more, the Bard class could have been divided into archetypes for other classes. A Skald to the Barbarian, a Minstrel to the Rogue, and so on.

[Kryx]

The Skald subclass is added for the Warrior.
The Archivist subclass is added for the Mage.
The Jester subclass and Whisperer subclass are added for the Rogue.

I think this implementation of the Skald is much more inline with what I expect out of the Skald concept.

I don't think the spellcasting Bard should live on.

[Marcloure]

Yeah, turns out it ain't half bad.

The Skald is currently very powerful. It's like, two classes into one. I think the Skald should lose Jack of All Trades (maybe move it into a Perk?), otherwise it gains a lot at 3rd level. If you compare that with other Warrior's subclasses, there is a big gap. Also, it gains Bolstering Presence and Battle Chant, which are two powerful features.

[Kryx]

The Skald is currently very powerful. It's like, two classes into one. I think the Skald should lose Jack of All Trades (maybe move it into a Perk?), otherwise it gains a lot at 3rd level. If you compare that with other Warrior's subclasses, there is a big gap. Also, it gains Bolstering Presence and Battle Chant, which are two powerful features.

Using Battlemaster at level 20 to compare:


Ancestral Guardian:
Ancestral Protectors: 4/short rest 1 minute of debuff on an enemy
Spirit Shield: unlimited reaction to reduce damage.
Consult the Spirits: Cast a spell as a ritual
Vengeful Ancestors: unlimited damage on reaction from Spirit Shield

Skald:
Musician: pure ribbon feature
Jack of all Trades: half prof on unproficient ability checks
Battle Chant: 3/short rest effect
Bolstering Presence: AoE aura buff
Dirge of Doom: 1/short rest spell
Battle March: minor aoe movement buff for allies

Samurai:
Bonus Proficiencies: 1 language or skill
Fighting Spirit: 1/short rest advantage and temporary hit points - quite strong with action surge for example
Elegant Courtier: Persuasion check bonus and prof with will saving throws
Tireless Spirit: Fighting Spirit 1/short rest
Rapid Strike: unlimited reaction to miss a lot less

Zealot:
Divine Fury: 4/short rest damage buff for 1 minute
Warrior of the Gods: mostly ribbon feature
Fanatical Focus: 1/short rest reroll saving throw
Zealous Presence: 1/long rest AoE buff for 1 turn
Fight Beyond Death: 1/long rest fight beyond death


I believe the Skald is in a good place. Battle chant is 3/short rest and the effects are less powerful than Ancestral Protectors which can be used 4/short rest. That's what Jack of all Trades makes up for.
Bolstering Presence is nice on paper, but in practice proficiency with saving throws is likely better. Overally pretty comparable depending on team makeup.

[Kryx]

Topic for discussion: Pet archetypes

I've changed how I've done pet archetypes a few time throughout my system between having them be a spell and having pet archetypes. My gut feeling is that pets as spells are more balanced. Animate Dead, Fiendish Calling, Giant Insect, Summon Celestial, etc are all balanced spells. Perhaps I should do the same for Eidolon, Homonculus, and the Beast? Call Beast already exists so I could just use that.

Spells will be more a more open ended option for more character concepts as well as the more balanced option as they consume resources and concentration so you can't have a pet and a summon spell.
The only perceived "downside" to pets as spells is that casters are stronger at pets. This makes sense, though the Ranger for example would be less proficient with pets than the Druid. I'm ok with that though.

I'm going to experiment with it.

Thoughts?

[Indigo Knight]

What design space the pet occupy?

to say, what would I expect it to accomplish for: master? allies? foes? ambivalent bystanders?

[Kryx]

What design space the pet occupy?

The same design space that a summon does. It can provide combat capability in the form of action economy, hp soaking, and damage. It can provide general utility: guard dog, intimidate others, maybe a flying or swimming speed, maybe as a messenger. It can provide long-term companionship.

Spells won't give us the always around pet unless we have a 24 hour duration like animate dead does, though I'm generally ok with that. With 1 hr/mana and short rests it'll quickly be able to cover the day should the character desire it.

[Marcloure]

Are companions currently imbalanced? I can see that braking the action economy can be a major issue, even if the DPR is good. If that is the problem, you letting it have a bit lower DPR should be ok, the archetypes which have companions are weaker by themselves.

The problem I see with having the companion as a spell is that it won't feel much like a companion: a creature that is much part of your group as is your character; it sleeps with you, get into trouble with you, is wanted, liked, or hated as you are. I think that is the cool part of being a beastmaster, more than whatever power it can bring. And it would feel strange to lose your companion because you want to cast detect magic or something.

With that said, I can understand companions as spells. But I think it should be like animate dead (24 hours, no conc.), but then it is just like the archetype. Well, it consumes mana, but the archetype already have less mana to compensate that.

Other solution is to give companions through Perks. This would allow warriors and rogues and spell-less rangers to have pets too. The problem is that it would probably be the strongest Perk (unless the companion is really weak).

[Morty]

While I agree about the decision to merge barbarians and fighters into one class in principle, I feel like the result is trying to juggle too many balls. Have you considered splitting it up but in a different way?

[Kryx]

While I agree about the decision to merge barbarians and fighters into one class in principle, I feel like the result is trying to juggle too many balls. Have you considered splitting it up but in a different way?

What is the issue with the Warrior? I find the resulting Battlemaster, Berserker, and Dervish archetypes are fantastic and them having access to the same subclasses works really well.

[Kryx]

Are companions currently imbalanced?

No, companion DPR is not an issue. The goal is more about accessibility for other archetypes. There are 3 archetypes that have a pet: Beastmaster, Homunculist, and Summoner. I believe those can be better executed with spells.

I also find the archetypes are too dependent on the pet. I'd like to change that. The way to break from that mold is resource management which leads to mana via spells.

It's also a bit of a testing ground for transformations as spells (Wild Shape conversation).

The problem I see with having the companion as a spell is that it won't feel much like a companion: a creature that is much part of your group as is your character; it sleeps with you, get into trouble with you, is wanted, liked, or hated as you are. I think that is the cool part of being a beastmaster, more than whatever power it can bring. And it would feel strange to lose your companion because you want to cast detect magic or something.

This won't be fully solved by having a 24 hour duration as the beast still would need mana. Though I think I could massage the flavor with some wording that lets you persist the pet by not recovering the mana on a long rest.

Other solution is to give companions through Perks. This would allow warriors and rogues and spell-less rangers to have pets too. The problem is that it would probably be the strongest Perk (unless the companion is really weak).

Perk DPR is far below what a companion provides. It'd have to be multiple perks and that feels quite messy and likely still not balanced as there aren't that many DPR perks to compete. I want perks to be available for flavor purposes as well.

[Marcloure]

On the Minstrel issue, I just happened to notice that the class served as a support class which was not divine. That is, that have access to spells from Courage, Life, Fear, and more. But then I notice that it never did that in your system. The Psionicist does.

And it makes sense, right? After all, being a bard is bolstering the courage of allies and diminishing it from foes, and changing emotions is very psionic. I remember a 4e class that was exactly that, the Ardent could change the emotions of both allies and enemies (I don't think that is needed to add, the Order of the Avatar already does that well).

I am posting this to say that I now feel good with the removal of the minstrel, and safe that there is another way to access Courage and Life that is not being divine or a bookworm (wizards).

[Kryx]

I agree that it's great to have a support class that is not divine. The Skald is still a support class, but now does it without magic as the Warlord does. I think it's great to have more options without spellcasting as well.

For a magical approach one could create a support character out of every spellcasting class:

• Acolyte has easy access to Life
• Alchemist has the Apothecary subclass for Life and Plants
• Incanter has Celestial, Phoenix, and Undying subclasses that have access to Life
• Mage could venture into Life or other themes with its features, though this is the hardest one to pull it off (probably good, for flavor reasons)
• Monk has way of Tranquility for Life
• Naturalist has access to some support via Plants. Twilight could cover the Life aspects as well
• Psionicist has the Avatar subclass.

Outside of Life there are perks or a new subclass to meet more specific character ideas.

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

I loved the Ardent from 4e. I remember playing a half-elf one - great fun. I think it's covered as well.

I am posting this to say that I now feel good with the removal of the minstrel, and safe that there is another way to access Courage and Life that is not being divine or a bookworm (wizards).

Great!
I expect there will be people who will miss the Bard/Minstrel archetype, but I don't think "magic as music" should exist. I'm much more inclined to play a Skald, Archivist, Whisperer, or Jester now that they are outside of that model.

[Marcloure]

I got a question. How to prevent someone from casting spells by means other than antimagic, if possible at all? I mean, in RAW tying up and gagging someone prevents it from casting most spells, but it doesn't work here.

There are a couple of things that doesn't allow a creature to speak, like the gag maneuver and steal breath spell, and I think those aren't meant to prevent spellcasting, right? So, how do you prevent someone from teleporting away or casting spells that don't require a command word? I'm tending to rule that you need at least to not have your hands bonded to cast a spell.

[Kryx]

FYI I've been sick so I haven't had time to dedicate to the project. I did the math for the eidolon as a spell, just need to clean the flavor up.

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

Regarding preventing spells being cast: it's up to each GM to determine how spells are manifest and ways to prevent them.
I'd say bound and gagged would prevent most spells, but spells like mind spells for example wouldn't be limited. To be sure, unconsciousness always works.

[Kryx]

The initial draft of the Summon Eidolon spell now appears on the Planes theme.

Let me know your thoughts. If this is a good approach I can use the same approach for an astral construct (Psionicist) and similar approaches for an animal companion (Naturalist) and homunculus (Alchemist).

EDIT: Perhaps I should make them perks afterall. Perks, but they still have a mana cost and still require a theme. That may be the best option.

[Marcloure]

Its scaling is way smother with mana, that sure is a good point. But why have it restricted to only if you don't have any other summon? This restriction doesn't exist for Animate Dead. Or is it intended to prevent you from having an Animal Companion and a Homunculus?

EDIT: Perhaps I should make them perks afterall. Perks, but they still have a mana cost and still require a theme. That may be the best option.

Maybe let the animal companion be "summoned" (called?) using stamina too?

[Kryx]

Normally multiple summons are restricted by concentration. Companions won't have concentration so to prevent mass summons which causes several issues I have the rule that you can only have 1 companion/summon. Animate Dead is unique in that it can summon multiple little guys, but none of those will be companions.

I'm unsure about stamina. Most companions are magical in nature besides maybe an animal companion.

[Kryx]

There is now an Eidolon perk which grants you a companion.

This method seems much better than spells. It's a perk, but also has mana costs.

I can follow the same model for Animal Companion for example by adjusting the perk.

[Kryx]

I've refined the Eidolon perk and added an Animal Companion, Astral Construct, and Homunculus.

I think this system works quite well.

Thoughts?

[Marcloure]

Yeah, I liked it.

One thing, I think the Astral Construct could use some description of what it is., otherwise it's just a construct made of Astral stuff (that is not wrong but). Actually, flavor aside, I just noticed that Astral Constructs is pretty similar to Homunculi. Should something be done to differentiate them?

Note: some Perks prerequisites *Eidolon enhancement*. Should it be *Eidolon Perk*?

[Kryx]

Yeah, I liked it.

Great! Then I'll depricate the pet archetypes this weekend.

One thing, I think the Astral Construct could use some description of what it is., otherwise it's just a construct made of Astral stuff (that is not wrong but). Actually, flavor aside, I just noticed that Astral Constructs is pretty similar to Homunculi. Should something be done to differentiate them?

The Astral Construct is more malleable than the Homunculus, but they are quite similar. I'll try to flesh them out a bit more though.

some Perks prerequisites *Eidolon enhancement*. Should it be *Eidolon Perk*?

Fixed!

[tyresias11]

I have a silly question that is largely targeted to the 5e system as a whole rather just yours.

Can someone explain to me how does scaling works with most class abilities?
For example the lay on hands, channel divinity ability. At 2 or 3 level, a 4d8+wisdom is a substantial amount. At level 10, its a huge loss to spend your action to such a minimal heal as your health pool grows exponentially while lay on hands remains static.

Now, you do get a second charge at lvl 7. But the amount is still 4d8 + wisdom. Its healing amount is not warranted enough to spent an action in combat. In 2nd level it would have made a huge difference. I can see its functionality changing to an out of combat healing rather than something u can pull in an encounter. That's fine albeit a bit odd to have an ability with a fluctuating efficient usage. 2x 4d8+wisdom out of combat is still good. At 14 level where we are at, it's almost never worth to waste a channel divinity charge for it even in combat.

Am I missing something? How does it work for you guys and the games u have seen?

Ps: sorry for the English.

[Kryx]

Channel Divinity-like abilities are equivalent of a 2 mana spell. Many of them that are numerical (damage) have wording that allows them to scale with more investment. Fear for example: "You can cast *fear* augmented to 2 mana without expending mana. You can augment it further by expending mana."

If you add an issue to the issue tracker I will be sure to do an audit of all of them and ensure the numeric ones have an option to invest more mana for them to scale.
EDIT: added as a task: https://bitbucket.org/mlenser/tablet...ike-options-to

lvl 7. But the amount is still 4d8 + wisdom. Its healing amount is not warranted enough to spent an action in combat.

22 healing is still substantial at level 7. That'll provide more healing than the typical enemy can damage at that level (taking to hit into account). At higher levels it's not as important, correct.

[Morty]

What is the issue with the Warrior? I find the resulting Battlemaster, Berserker, and Dervish archetypes are fantastic and them having access to the same subclasses works really well.

True, I suppose the archetypes do add an extra layer, so that the "top" classes can be quite broad. Though the "Toughness" ability seems a bit odd, given that they still have the option to focus on dexterity. But I guess it's meant to help strength-based warriors with their AC?

[igorboschetti]

Kryx, about the new comanions perk, do the companion already start with the first enchancement in the companion table? or must reach the energy 5 companion to learns it?

Example: Badger, gets fury on energy 2 or 5?

[Kryx]

it's meant to help strength-based warriors with their AC?

I've moved toughness to the Berserker and refactored it a bit.

===========

Kryx, about the new comanions perk, do the companion already start with the first enchancement in the companion table? or must reach the energy 5 companion to learns it?

Example: Badger, gets fury on energy 2 or 5?

"First enhancement" is given at 5 energy when it gets "Enhancement. Choose one Enhancement."