D&D 5e Base Class Contest I Chat Thread

[Jormengand]

Daredevil is probably OP but oh well. I copied a few of the class features directly from my old 3.5 one so they're a bit powerful in 5e. Others I didn't because that would have been totally ridiculous (a +8 luck bonus to everything at level 6 is a bit much!). Still, it probably ends up decent because it's not actually great with weapons or skills, apart from the luck benefits.

I dunno. Plzrate+comment. Also I will of course fill in the tricks and charms eventually.

[MoleMage]

Daredevil:

• Proficiency in initiative is such a reasonable mechanic I'm surprised it doesn't exist already (well...bards and champions get half proficiency to initiative, but beyond that).
• It's odd in 5e for a class to have conditions which cause you to lose class features. Mechanically this is sound it just doesn't exist on any published class so I don't have anything to compare it to. Also it means that there's no way for them to heal outside of resting (unless one of their tricks gives them healing).
• Tricks work but the wording is odd. Look at the wording on Warlock invocations for a similar class feature type.
• Shrug off is strange to me. They can spend hit points to negate death? There's no way for a dead character to have more than 0 hit points in 5e.
• Proficiency in more saves fits the theme, and isn't notably stronger than paladin of devotions +cha to all saves (even when they get proficiency in all saves, the paladin probably has a +3 or 4 to all saves as an aura). It gives the class a unique power niche.
• Advantage on everything is thematic, but might be too strong when considering multiclassing or the interplay of advantage and disadvantage. Maybe allow the daredevil to reroll any check, save, or attack, but they must take the new result?
• Likewise with Double Down.
• On that subject, Double Down sounds like an "active" ability, while Second Guess sounds like a "utility" ability to me. I think their mechanics fit better if the names are swapped.
• Escape Unscathed is a good upgrade to Uncanny Dodge, but doesn't feel strong compared to Double Down or Second Guess. A reaction is still limited to one/round.

My initial assessment, pending Tricks and Archetypes, is that the Daredevil is strong, but not fun. Statistically, they are more likely to succeed on just about any check than any other class, especially in the higher tiers of play. However, their options for action are limited to Shrug Off, Uncanny Dodge, and universal actions. Also, spending hit points and the restrictions on magic are both unusual mechanics in 5e, and though that's not bad, it does make it harder for me to eyeball the balance of the class. Have you considered using a class resource? You could tie Shrug Off, Second Guess, and Double Down into it. You could also move Escape Unscathed to an earlier level and give them a "regain class resource more often" capstone (initiative for short rest resource, short rest for long rest resource).
That said, tricks sound like they give active player choice, which invalidates pretty much my entire summary above. I'll revise this once they are up.

[JNAProductions]

I have no idea what to design. Anyone want to toss out some ideas? I might work on Sadidas, but I'm not sure...

[Requilac]

Investigator (commentary made before archetypes were finished)

• The table says "Analysis Points" but the description says "Perfect Analyst".
• You have no combat-applicable class features until 6th level in the core class, other than being able to automatically identify stats of a creature as a bonus action. Detective gets +Int to initiative starting at 3, but nothing in particular to do with it. While your class is clearly meant to excel more in out-of-combat contexts, consider what a player of your class is going to be using their action for each round in combat.
• Enhanced Analysis's fourth option seems like it should say damage by context, but says attack rolls.
• Enhanced Analysis doesn't scale beyond increasing Int, which I would probably max out as soon as possible in this class. With a racial bonus of at least +1 and using standard array, this means I would maximize the potential of my core combat ability by level 8, gaining no further scaling as I progress into higher level play. Consider giving it more upgrades, possibly alongside upgrades to other features.
• No core class gets evasion earlier than level 7; your Explorer archetype gets it at 3. Consider giving this archetype something similar to the barbarian's danger sense (level 2) instead at this level, and evasion later on to line up more with monk and rogue.

All in all this class has (so far) a lot of cool flavorful abilities that don't carry a lot of power (ribbons). Almost all of their combat ability is tied up in their level 6 ability, improved by their once-per day level 18 ability. I would suggest giving this class more power earlier on (which doesn't need to be spells or attack bonuses; something in the spirit of Bardic Inspiration would seem more appropriate to the class). I'm curious to see how your archetypes play out once you've fleshed them out more.

Interesting how you pointed all that out, because a lot of that was actually intentional. Most of the features coming from the base class are ribbons. The in combat features are mostly coming from the sub-class features, which have yet to be built. If you also didn't notice, the class gets seven main class features, and six sub-class features, which means that archetype is a very crucial part of playing an Investigator. They will definitely get some things more useful in combat at early levels.

The archetypes' third level features are going to be changed definitely, I was mostly just putting down those features to jot down notes.

And also, I would advise you to take another look over what trap avoidance actually does. That is not a complete version of the evasion trait, though it has a very similar effect. Take a careful look at the following sentence especially.

If you are subjected to an effect that allows you to make a dexterity saving throw to take only half damage from a trap or harmful environmental factor, you instead take no damage if you succeed on the saving throw, and only half damage if you fail.

So I don't really play 5E but I'm trying my hand at class deign. Major concern my class will have a bite as primary attack option, but is giving scaling damage reasonable like a monk but at a higher amount so like base die being D8. Another trait is they will be able to to swallow whole 2 sizes smaller and eventually 1 size larger. Is there any monsters that a are good pull point?

There is actually a special action certain monsters have called "swallow" which could be of massive use to you. I know off the top of my head the both the Behir and Tarrasque have such a feature. It could be a good starting point.

[Requilac]

I have no idea what to design. Anyone want to toss out some ideas? I might work on Sadidas, but I'm not sure...

What I did was I thought of real life medieval careers (which don't involve spells) and speculated how they would work if placed into a magical D&D world. Hence why I created the Investigator class which heavily relies on telepathy. My original idea was actually to create a plague doctor class, but then I discovered I actually don't know anything about plague doctors and decided to bail.

[JNAProductions]

So, I made the Marshal, an updated 3.5 class. And heavily revamped, because my god. That thing had, like, three class features over 20 levels.

[Jormengand]

Proficiency in initiative is such a reasonable mechanic I'm surprised it doesn't exist already (well...bards and champions get half proficiency to initiative, but beyond that).

That's a good start!

It's odd in 5e for a class to have conditions which cause you to lose class features. Mechanically this is sound it just doesn't exist on any published class so I don't have anything to compare it to. Also it means that there's no way for them to heal outside of resting (unless one of their tricks gives them healing).

This is a holdover from the 3.5 daredevil - and the other 3.5 classes with the same feature. All of these classes were exceptionally powerful in 3.5 (the daredevil got a bonus equal to a little under double their level to all d20 rolls and damage rolls, and ended up giving themselves quintuple-advantage and enemies double-disadvantage by level 20, and other horrible class features that didn't even make it into the 5e one).

They will have some way of healing, yeah.

Tricks work but the wording is odd. Look at the wording on Warlock invocations for a similar class feature type.

Fair enough; I can reword this.

Shrug off is strange to me. They can spend hit points to negate death? There's no way for a dead character to have more than 0 hit points in 5e.

Suppose a daredevil with 75 hit points is hit with an effect which would normally cause death. The daredevil can either die, or pay 50 hit points to avoid dying, dropping down to 25 hit points. A daredevil with 40 hit points, however, has no ability to avoid the effect and must die.

Proficiency in more saves fits the theme, and isn't notably stronger than paladin of devotions +cha to all saves (even when they get proficiency in all saves, the paladin probably has a +3 or 4 to all saves as an aura). It gives the class a unique power niche.

Of course, the monk gets it at level 14 too.

Advantage on everything is thematic, but might be too strong when considering multiclassing or the interplay of advantage and disadvantage. Maybe allow the daredevil to reroll any check, save, or attack, but they must take the new result?

That's almost exactly the same as advantage anyway if you have a clue what the DC is, and one thing I hate about 5e is not making the DCs clear.

On that subject, Double Down sounds like an "active" ability, while Second Guess sounds like a "utility" ability to me. I think their mechanics fit better if the names are swapped.

On the other hand, double down sounds more like a defensive ability, at least to me.

Escape Unscathed is a good upgrade to Uncanny Dodge, but doesn't feel strong compared to Double Down or Second Guess. A reaction is still limited to one/round.

Hmm. In 3.5, it was "All damage you take is minimised with no action cost" but that's way too strong for 5e. I guess I could make it like the old 3.5 improved evasion, only with 5e uncanny dodge (you take half damage automatically, and can use your reaction to take no damage).

That said, tricks sound like they give active player choice, which invalidates pretty much my entire summary above. I'll revise this once they are up.

Sweet, thanks.

[MoleMage]

Investigator

Interesting how you pointed all that out, because a lot of that was actually intentional. Most of the features coming from the base class are ribbons.

The point I was trying to make is not that this class is bad at combat, but that it doesn't offer expanded choice. Perfect Analyst feels like a class feature that should allow me to notice that an obsidian turtle's shell and bony skull and leg plates are almost perfectly fireproof stone, but it has normal flesh on the soles of its feet and inside its mouth, but right now all it would tell me is that the creature is immune to fire. Or if a 30 foot bone horror has a gap in its reach directly between its frontmost two legs, all Perfect Analyst gives me is that its attack bonus is more than 50% likely to hit our fighter. Enhanced Analysis gives the good-feeling mechanical benefits that I expected to see from Perfect Analyst, but I have to wait until level 6 to get it. And there's still the trouble with scaling on Enhanced Analysis. When you get the feature at level 6, Bardic Inspiration is a d8 or 4.5 with more options for application, and the investigator has at best a +5 regardless of level with more restrictive options compensated by more frequent application (more charges, applies to all checks for 1 round instead of one check). So at 6, I would say they come out pretty close, leaning towards Enhanced Analysis (the full round of bonus counts for a lot more than the broader application), but this is the Investigator's only core feature modifying combat, whereas the Bard has third levels spells by this point. And Bardic Inspiration improves to 1d10 (5.5) at level 10, and to 1d12 (6.5) at level 15, leaving Enhanced Analysis behind.

The in combat features are mostly coming from the sub-class features, which have yet to be built. If you also didn't notice, the class gets seven main class features, and six sub-class features, which means that archetype is a very crucial part of playing an Investigator. They will definitely get some things more useful in combat at early levels.

This works, but if you do it this way, you have to make sure that all sub-classes get enough combat relevant features. If you move some combat-relevant features into the main class, you open up options for sub-classes that specialize in non-combat options (like Rogue's Thief or Mastermind, or the Druid's Circle of Dreams).

The archetypes' third level features are going to be changed definitely, I was mostly just putting down those features to jot down notes.

I will withhold from further criticism on them in that case.

And also, I would advise you to take another look over what trap avoidance actually does. That is not a complete version of the evasion trait, though it has a very similar effect. Take a careful look at the following sentence especially.

If you are subjected to an effect that allows you to make a dexterity saving throw to take only half damage from a trap or harmful environmental factor, you instead take no damage if you succeed on the saving throw, and only half damage if you fail.

Missed the caveat. Carry on, this is fine (danger sense from the other side of the equation).

One last thing that I missed the first time: by the normal rules of communication, telepathy already implicitly allows the Investigator to share information they receive through Perfect Analyst with anyone in their telepathy range since communication does not cost an action. By the same note, the level 13 upgrade to telepathy doesn't do anything at all, mechanically speaking.

Daredevil

Suppose a daredevil with 75 hit points is hit with an effect which would normally cause death. The daredevil can either die, or pay 50 hit points to avoid dying, dropping down to 25 hit points. A daredevil with 40 hit points, however, has no ability to avoid the effect and must die.

Clarified and understood, thanks.

Of course, the monk gets it at level 14 too.

Forgot about that. Never managed to play a monk past level 4 or so.

That's almost exactly the same as advantage anyway if you have a clue what the DC is, and one thing I hate about 5e is not making the DCs clear.

The reason I suggested it is that it doesn't interact with other mechanics the same way advantage does. For example, wording it that way doesn't allow free sneak attacks always, and if you reroll a disadvantage roll, the second roll is still with disadvantage (or, for that matter, it works with advantage).

On the other hand, double down sounds more like a defensive ability, at least to me.

Yeah this was pretty nitpicky of me. Semantics, right?

Hmm. In 3.5, it was "All damage you take is minimised with no action cost" but that's way too strong for 5e. I guess I could make it like the old 3.5 improved evasion, only with 5e uncanny dodge (you take half damage automatically, and can use your reaction to take no damage).

That's a much stronger capstone. Also fits with the theme of "being really lucky at doing things but not having special training".

Sweet, thanks.

No problem. If you get time, mind checking out the Spiritcaller?


EDIT: formatting

[Jormengand]

I would ask if people who are using homebrewery could please also produce a version of their class that renders properly on all browsers, particularly if they want me to have a look at it.

EDIT: Tricks are up.

[MoleMage]

Double posting to provide feedback on the Marshal and Inventor without them getting lost in the response post.
As with my previous feedback, I will provide the caveat that I am not an expert nor even a particularly experienced amateur. I will almost certainly be wrong about some of my talking points.

Marshal

• The language on auras doesn't specify whether a Marshal can maintain both a major and minor aura themself, just that major and minor auras stack. Since the wording in each feature specifies that the aura ends if you activate a new one without specifying a type of aura, it sounds like the Marshal can only maintain one or the other, but looking at the aura options and progression, I think they are intended to maintain one of each.
• Inspiration might be available too frequently. It's hard to compare directly to Bard since Marshal doesn't get spellcasting, but having a class resource that doesn't revolve around the rest economy is unusual in 5e. I have no complaints about the faster progression compared to Bardic Inspiration.
• The marshal's expertise progresses to a total of 6 skills, whereas other classes with expertise only get 4. Likewise, the Marshal gets 7 skill proficiencies all told, more than the class with the highest total in core, the lore bard (6 proficiencies). However, I think that you've spread it out far enough that this isn't imbalanced (especially since the last two expertises are at level 20).
• Swing and 'Spire is an amusing name. Makes me think of some spaghetti-western outlaw cowboy for some reason, but as a respectable master of tactics in full plate.
• The General's Fight Harder says that allies gain advantage on inspiration rolls. Advantage is only applied to d20 rolls in 5e, did you mean they have advantage on the d20 roll they're adding inspiration to, or they roll the inspiration die twice and use the better result?
• Does the General's Steel Within, Steel Without stack with the Defense fighting style? I'm going to assume they do, but since the effect is identical, I thought maybe it was designed as "Defense style for free" rather than "Second Defense style".
• Leader of Men carries the same bookkeeping concern that Leadership in 3.5 did, but cleaner since you're just using a stat block from the NPC section of the monster manual rather than building a whole new character. The only point of comparison I have in core for this feature is Beast Master Ranger, which gets the proficiency all at once but does not improve CR, and which requires the Ranger to take actions to benefit. That said, the circumstances of the two classes are very different. My gut says that instead of improving the CR of the men-at-arms when the feature improves, you should get new special interactions with them, but as for balance I think you're probably okay.
• The Explorer's March On, Faster! and Master of Terrain come much later than comparable features from Barbarian, Monk, Land Druid, and Ranger. Likewise, Fleet of Foot comes later than similar features possessed by Monk and Rogue. Like a Monkey Fish thing matches approximately with the Thief Rogue's Second Story Work, but I would consider moving it to a later level and putting March On, Faster! at the beginning of the archetype.

Overall, the class seems to be mechanically in place. There isn't a lot of non-mechanical information provided as of now, and some of the wording was unclear as noted above. My primary concern was the complete lack of a resource economy; even Champion Fighters have a tiny resource economy element in 5e in the form of Action Surge/Second Wind.

The Inventor

• Throughout the class you use consistent crafting rules that appear to be borrowed from older editions. However, Xanathar's Guide describes crafting during downtime, and as long as a character is proficient in the relevant tool and puts in the time and resources, they always succeed on the craft no check required. Given that this class relies on their craftworks in order to function, you might use those rules instead of the ones from older editions.
• Overall, the downtime and gold requirements of this class are unlike anything published. However, they are roughly in line with the comparable Artificer. I would consider giving players of the class a certain amount of "free" scrap based on level and/or allowing them to recoup 100% of scrap from their own inventions rather than 50% from other items, to allow them to exist and function in campaigns where treasure is less scrapable, or in circumstances where they are cut off from their normal resources (Macguyver style).
• The attack roll bonus from Ingenuity seems out of place alongside the other benefits it offers.
• You might consider giving players their first Clockwork Dynamo for free (see the Unearthed Arcana Artificer features Mechanical Servant and Thunder Cannon for examples of a mechanic that is free when gained but costs resources and time to replace).
• Retrofit is a nice feel-good class improvement. Can you also remove features from an invention when retrofitting it?
• Signature Mechanism mentions "Clockwork Mechanism" instead of "Clockwork Dynamo".
• Is there a specific reason that Trapsmith has different rules for non-magical traps? 5e doesn't mark a distinction between magical and non-magical traps normally. If this is just to fit the flavor of the class that's one thing but if you were worried about balance allowing magical traps wouldn't break it (nor do I think that it is underpowered as it stands. In fact, I'm going to strike this whole comment out before posting).
• Inventor's Acumen makes you better at fighting organic non-aberrant creatures (which have discernable anatomy), but not any better at fighting constructs (which have no anatomy). This feels backwards for a class so focused on mechanisms. On that note, "discernable anatomy" is not to my knowledge used anywhere in 5e anymore.
• Edeficionado is like a cooler more customizable version of Mordenkainen's Magnificent Mansion, to outward appearances. This is a good upgrade for the tier increase. Scrap costs may be tedious to track, though.
• Permanent Hit Die loss is a very severe penalty, but as you've provided a mechanic by which to recover it should be okay.
• The fourth base gadget invention should probably specify that it has to be triggered, rather than activated. Otherwise it is just better than the fifth base gadget. If I read the intent wrong (I assumed one was meant as a trap, the other as an actively wielded item), disregard this comment.
• You've lost a sidebar from the Gadget's page in your formatting.
• The returning weapon Equipment invention probably doesn't need to incur disadvantage.
• The alchemist's supplies weapon invention could require refueling with an appropriate substance instead of breaking down after use.
• Ablative armor could have a reactivation condition (use an action to reactivate, the Inventor can refresh the ability after a short or long rest, etc) instead of breaking down after a single use.
• Autonomous Invention lost a column in the formatting. There should probably be an upper limit on AC bonus it can receive or a diminishing return similar to the speed upgrade.
• Elixer of Life and Bombs were lost to formatting. Is there an upper limit on the number of simultaneous alchemical creations you can make or is it just limited by money and logic?
• Your firearm table for the rifle has a "Reload" column, which is referred to in all text as "ammo".
• Physicist looks good to me. All of the features are clean and logical.

My list is bigger than normal, but then so is your class. However, at the end of the day your class is smaller than a spellcasting list, so the only reason it seems unwieldy is that we are accustomed to spellcasting, while you built a whole new system of inventing (IE, don't feel the need to shrink it, it's better the way it is).
I don't like scrap, personally. I feel like the class's limitations on making things are already well managed with Invention points, and spending what is essentially money for what are essentially core features doesn't feel good for players. For Black Powder's ammo, you could give them a class feature that converts standard arrows instead. Further, the downtime requirements of the Inventor would be a burden on the rest of the party as well. If you specified that they could continue to work during brief breaks in adventuring (basically everything we as players would gloss over because it isn't interesting), it would reduce that impact. If you extend it to normal crafting as well, it becomes a cool ribbon feature.
This class would work very well in a low magic campaign, but you haven't given any suggestions for interactions between inventions and magic. Can firearms be enchanted? Do alchemical formulae employ magic? If so, are their products magical or just the process? These questions aren't required in order for the class to be complete, but I am still curious on a personal level.

[JNAProductions]

Will edit auras-you are meant to have both a minor and major at the same time.

Considering it replaces your attacks, for the most part, I don't think it's a big issue. However, what changes would you recommend making to Inspiration, if you think it needs be changed?

Yeah. I want Marshals to have lots o' skills! Use those checks!

Thank you.

They use the inspiration die twice and take the better roll. Will edit for clarity.

It stacks. So yes, you can hit 22 AC at level six, if you snag full plate and a shield. Might be a TOUCH high, but I'm not THAT concerned about it-do you think it's an issue? (If it is, I can just say "You gain the Defense Fighting Style, or if you already have it, pick another one.")

Yeah-any ideas for what can be done? Perhaps allowing them to Help as bonus actions, or something like that?

Rejiggered the order you get features in Explorer.

And there's actually another PC Class that never gets resource management-the Rogue. Their only resource feature is at level 20. (And, if you dip Monk 1 after Rogue 19, you'll be level 20 with absolutely no resources except HP and Hit Dice. Assuming not AT, of course.)

Overall, thank you very much for the feedback, MoleMage! I might add some fluff in a bit, but for now, glad it's mechanically sound.

[MoleMage]

Will edit auras-you are meant to have both a minor and major at the same time.

Considering it replaces your attacks, for the most part, I don't think it's a big issue. However, what changes would you recommend making to Inspiration, if you think it needs be changed?

If you want to have it stay every initiative, I would just reduce the number you get. Maybe one per proficiency bonus when you roll initiative, and you regain a number equal to Cha bonus when you use your action to refresh it? Otherwise I would make it a short rest feature, and make the action to refresh an upgrade later in the class (which itself refreshes on a short rest).

It stacks. So yes, you can hit 22 AC at level six, if you snag full plate and a shield. Might be a TOUCH high, but I'm not THAT concerned about it-do you think it's an issue? (If it is, I can just say "You gain the Defense Fighting Style, or if you already have it, pick another one.")

It's defensively strong, but not unreasonably so I don't think. Bearbarians get resist all but psychic, and you're still subject to saving throws at the same rate as normal. I just noticed they were identical and wondered about intent.

Yeah-any ideas for what can be done? Perhaps allowing them to Help as bonus actions, or something like that?

The only idea I had earlier was allowing both men-at-arms to share a single activation of inspiration (you inspire one and both become inspired). You could also allow them to get some version of pack tactics with you or with each other or both, or allow them to use their reactions to attack in concert.

And there's actually another PC Class that never gets resource management-the Rogue. Their only resource feature is at level 20. (And, if you dip Monk 1 after Rogue 19, you'll be level 20 with absolutely no resources except HP and Hit Dice. Assuming not AT, of course.)

See this is what happens when I don't finish my coffee before reading classes. I miss obvious details like this. Dang rogue not having any core features that require a rest.

Overall, thank you very much for the feedback, MoleMage! I might add some fluff in a bit, but for now, glad it's mechanically sound.

My pleasure! I hope I didn't come across too negative. I feel like I do that sometimes when providing feedback.

[Jormengand]

Almost done - just one more lucky charm to do, and maybe give the Tarot of Secrets some real features at later levels other than "More draws".

[WarrentheHero]

The Inventor

First I just want to thank you for the feedback!

Throughout the class you use consistent crafting rules that appear to be borrowed from older editions. However, Xanathar's Guide describes crafting during downtime, and as long as a character is proficient in the relevant tool and puts in the time and resources, they always succeed on the craft no check required. Given that this class relies on their craftworks in order to function, you might use those rules instead of the ones from older editions.

I admit that the crafting is inspired by older editions, but for good reason- In my opinion, part of the charm of an builder class is the act of building itself. If the appeal is that you make things, it should feel like you're making things, and sometimes things go wrong with that. In extended campaign, this often comes down to "I spend a week while we're in town in my workshop, here are my rolls, I succeeded on these three but had to re-try my fourth". It's a hassle, but that's because building is hassle. I feel like if the class just gave results for Inventions, it would lose some of the impact and feeling of accomplishment of building your Invention

Spoiler

Show

The intent is to provide players with a sense of pride and accomplishment for unlocking different Inventions

You might consider giving players their first Clockwork Dynamo for free (see the Unearthed Arcana Artificer features Mechanical Servant and Thunder Cannon for examples of a mechanic that is free when gained but costs resources and time to replace).

I think you might be right there.

Retrofit is a nice feel-good class improvement. Can you also remove features from an invention when retrofitting it?

The design intent is that you can only add features. Your DM could easily rule that you could remove features, but that's not what I had in mind.
[*]Signature Mechanism mentions "Clockwork Mechanism" instead of "Clockwork Dynamo".

Is there a specific reason that Trapsmith has different rules for non-magical traps? 5e doesn't mark a distinction between magical and non-magical traps normally. If this is just to fit the flavor of the class that's one thing but if you were worried about balance allowing magical traps wouldn't break it (nor do I think that it is underpowered as it stands. In fact, I'm going to strike this whole comment out before posting).

You struckthrough so I assume you redacted the critique, but I'll respond for clarity. It's absolutely to fit the flavor of the class more than any balance issue. If a class is designed around physical, mechanical items, it doesn't make sense that they're suddenly able to interface with magic. At the same time, they are experienced trap-makers, and a magical trap is still a trap, so there's a smaller bonus. This is an instance in which 5e's Advantage mechanic (which I love) can be a hindrance, as the system's design follows "if you're good at it, advantage", without much room for different 'tiers' of good-ness.

Inventor's Acumen makes you better at fighting organic non-aberrant creatures (which have discernable anatomy), but not any better at fighting constructs (which have no anatomy). This feels backwards for a class so focused on mechanisms. On that note, "discernable anatomy" is not to my knowledge used anywhere in 5e anymore.

You're right about constructs; I didn't fully think that one through. Changed. As for discernable anatomy, it is an archaic term, but I think even without experience with older editions, its meaning and intent can be parsed pretty easily. Gelatinous Cubes and Gibbering Mouthers are just piles of ooze and flesh, no real anatomy. Humans, robots, dragons, all have a working understandable anatomy.

The fourth base gadget invention should probably specify that it has to be triggered, rather than activated. Otherwise it is just better than the fifth base gadget. If I read the intent wrong (I assumed one was meant as a trap, the other as an actively wielded item), disregard this comment.

The great and difficult thing about Inventions, especially the Gadgets, is that there is no real intent. Both can be actively wielded items, or both traps. If you want to make a flamethrower, you'd use the fourth Invention. If you wanted to make a servo-gauntlet to enhance your punches, that's the fifth. If you want to make a trap that showers the target with spikes, that could be the first. If you want to make a trap that launches a single spear at a target, that's the fifth.

• You've lost a sidebar from the Gadget's page in your formatting.
• Autonomous Invention lost a column in the formatting. There should probably be an upper limit on AC bonus it can receive or a diminishing return similar to the speed upgrade.
• Elixer of Life and Bombs were lost to formatting. Is there an upper limit on the number of simultaneous alchemical creations you can make or is it just limited by money and logic?

Hmm.. not sure what's going on there. It's formatted just fine for me on desktop and mobile. I'll drop them in a spoiler here just in case, I suppose.

Spoiler

Show

Spoiler: GADGET SIDEBAR 1

Show

Can my Invention do...?
The purpose of the Inventor Class is to allow players to create tools and playstyles that they want to use. To this end, you should think of Inventions as inclusive with regards to their ability. If there is something you want to build that isn't covered by the options presented here, or that conflicts slightly with these rules, work with your DM to create the Invention you want to create.

Spoiler: GADGET SIDEBAR 2

Show

A Fiery Example
Alston is a 5th-level Inventor with 18 Intelligence who wants to create a Flamethrower. He eventually works out that he wants the Flamethrower to work as follows:

Using an Action, the Flamethrower engulfs a 15ft cone in fire. All creatures in that area must succeed on a DC 15 Dexterity saving throw or else take 2d6 Fire damage, or half as much on a success.

This Invention requires a total of 5 Invention points and a Clockwork Dynamo, as it does damage based on Dexterity Saves, works in a cone, expanded to 15 ft, does half damage on a successful save, and does Fire damage. Alston needs to be proficient in Alchemist's Supplies to build this, and the creation process requires a total of 25 Scrap and 10 hours of work, as well as a DC 15 Invention Check. After creating it, Alston has 2 Invention Points he can use to build other Inventions.

Spoiler: ELIXER OF LIFE

Show

You've discovered the ultimate Alchemical Secret: Immortality

You no longer age, nor will you ever suffer ill effects due to old age. You no longer need eat, drink, breathe, or sleep. You gain immunity to Poison damage, the Poisoned condition and all diseases, and resistance to Necrotic damage. Finally, your Constitution score increases by 2 to a maximum of 24.

Spoiler: BOMBS

Show

Bombs
Bombs have a range of 20 feet and effect a 5-foot radius, forcing all creatures in that area to succeed on a Dexterity saving throw against your Invention DC. On a failure, the full effect of the Bomb takes place. On a success, the damage is halved or the condition is not applied. Some Bombs require different kinds of saves, each of which must be made individually. If the sole effect of a bomb requires something other than a Dexterity Save, no Dexterity Save is required at all.

For each different kind of save in a single Bomb, the cost of materials increases by 50 gold. For each Invention Point in its recipe, a Bomb applies one of the following effects. Each can be chosen only once, unless otherwise stated.

The Bomb’s radius increases by 5 feet.
The Bomb does 1d8 Acid, Cold, Fire, Lightning, or Poison damage.
If the Bomb does damage increases that damage by 1d8. You may select this multiple times, to a maximum of three total times.
This Bomb requires a Constitution saving throw and Poisons the target for 1 minute, or Incapacitates the target until the start of your next turn. At the end of each of its turns, a creature may repeat this save, ending the Poisoned condition on itself on a success. Choose which of these two effects is used when you create the Recipe.
The Bomb restrains the target. The target may use an action to make an Acrobatics or Athletics check against your Invention DC, ending the effect on a success.
This bomb requires a Wisdom saving throw. On a failure, effected creatures are Charmed by you for 1 minute. A creature has advantage on this save if it is hostile to you or your allies. A creature can repeat this save at the end of each of its turns, ending the effect in itself on a success.
This bomb requires a Wisdom saving throw. On a failure, effected creatures or Frightened by you for 1 minute. A creature can repeat this save at the end of each of its turns, ending the effect in itself on a success.
This bomb creates an obscuring mist in a 20-foot radius. This mist heavily obscures the area for 30 seconds, and then lightly obscures the area, after which time it dissipates. The mist can be dispersed by a sufficiently strong wind.
This Bomb requires a Constitution saving throw. On a failure, effected creatures are Blinded and Deafened for 1 minute. On a success, it is instead Blinded and Deafened until the end of your next turn. A creature can repeat this save at the end of each of its turns, ending the effect in itself on a success.
This Bomb requires a Dexterity or Strength saving throw, chosen when its Recipe is created. On a failure, an effected creature is knocked prone.

Alchemical Concoctions are limited by Invention Points. Drafting a Recipe requires Invention Points, and if you destroy the Recipe, you currently existing Concoctions brewed with that recipe go inert shortly thereafter. If you mean how many you can have total, rather than how many kinds, there is no listed upper limit. As many as you can afford! But all have a maximum lifespan of 12 days (7 days active, then cumulative +20% chance of failing for every day after).

The returning weapon Equipment invention probably doesn't need to incur disadvantage.

You're right.

• The alchemist's supplies weapon invention could require refueling with an appropriate substance instead of breaking down after use.
• Ablative armor could have a reactivation condition (use an action to reactivate, the Inventor can refresh the ability after a short or long rest, etc) instead of breaking down after a single use.

One of my initial outlines for this class included such a mechanic, but I realized that the way I would write it would ultimately end up as a differently-worded form of rebuilding it. The problem with that is that while it's inactive (while its uses are up), it would still take an Invention Point as it would be on the item, just not used. So I have them break down instead to immediatley refund the Invention Point as soon as its not useful. That said, I've been tossing around the idea of changing Ablative Armor to reduce its bonus by 1 for each it, so it's not as much a one-and-done feature.

Your firearm table for the rifle has a "Reload" column, which is referred to in all text as "ammo".

Just a holdover from a previous draft in which I forgot "Ammunition" was a property that existed, so having "Ammo" too would also be confusing.

I don't like scrap, personally. I feel like the class's limitations on making things are already well managed with Invention points, and spending what is essentially money for what are essentially core features doesn't feel good for players. For Black Powder's ammo, you could give them a class feature that converts standard arrows instead. Further, the downtime requirements of the Inventor would be a burden on the rest of the party as well. If you specified that they could continue to work during brief breaks in adventuring (basically everything we as players would gloss over because it isn't interesting), it would reduce that impact. If you extend it to normal crafting as well, it becomes a cool ribbon feature.

Scrap is weirdly one the most contentious class features for those outside the Playground I've run my earlier drafts by. I stand by it. It would be easier to simply say Inventions cost gold, or cost nothing at all. But where's the fun in that? Scrap is mostly a ribbon already, but it does provide a way to create a way to give a sort of gold-value to Inventions. I've toyed with the idea of creating a Sidebar Variant that just uses gold instead, at a ratio of 1 scrap = 2 gold, but never went through with it.
The thing about Scrap is that it honestly is not very expensive, and the levels at which you hit features that require a lot of Scrap, you should easily have that much in Scrap easily. Remember, every goblin's set of armor, every quarrel of arrows, every shortsword and crossbow, can be broken down into scrap. At level 1-3 it might be more in the party's interest to sell these items, but they quickly become forgotten and secondary, to the point where players don't even think of an enemy's armor and weapon if they aren't specifically being called out as something notable.

This class would work very well in a low magic campaign, but you haven't given any suggestions for interactions between inventions and magic. Can firearms be enchanted? Do alchemical formulae employ magic? If so, are their products magical or just the process? These questions aren't required in order for the class to be complete, but I am still curious on a personal level.

The interaction of alchemy with magic is intentionally ambiguous. It's implied by the subclass description to be physical, but in your campaign world it very much could be magical in nature. That's a campaign-level question rather than a class-level question, similar to how a Monk's Ki is described in the class's flavor text as being magical, but no-one ever uses it that way. It's what you want. As for Firearms, I don't see why they couldn't be enchanted. They are weapons, after all. But there's a risk, as Firearms can break permanently if you roll their Misfire once Damaged, so be careful, or have a friend cast Magic Weapon a lot!

[Requilac]

First of all, let me thank you for being so helpful to me and giving me such honest and useful criticisms. They must have took quite a while to do, and I am glad that you put so much time into it. Please don't find my following message as aggressive.

Investigator

The point I was trying to make is not that this class is bad at combat, but that it doesn't offer expanded choice. Perfect Analyst feels like a class feature that should allow me to notice that an obsidian turtle's shell and bony skull and leg plates are almost perfectly fireproof stone, but it has normal flesh on the soles of its feet and inside its mouth, but right now all it would tell me is that the creature is immune to fire. Or if a 30 foot bone horror has a gap in its reach directly between its frontmost two legs, all Perfect Analyst gives me is that its attack bonus is more than 50% likely to hit our fighter. Enhanced Analysis gives the good-feeling mechanical benefits that I expected to see from Perfect Analyst, but I have to wait until level 6 to get it. And there's still the trouble with scaling on Enhanced Analysis. When you get the feature at level 6, Bardic Inspiration is a d8 or 4.5 with more options for application, and the investigator has at best a +5 regardless of level with more restrictive options compensated by more frequent application (more charges, applies to all checks for 1 round instead of one check). So at 6, I would say they come out pretty close, leaning towards Enhanced Analysis (the full round of bonus counts for a lot more than the broader application), but this is the Investigator's only core feature modifying combat, whereas the Bard has third levels spells by this point. And Bardic Inspiration improves to 1d10 (5.5) at level 10, and to 1d12 (6.5) at level 15, leaving Enhanced Analysis behind.

This is still a class which is a work in progress keep in mind and isn’t even close to being finished. It will be given additional features to help it out in combat, I just have yet to include them. I am in the rough draft phase and the features I make are little more than notes I am jotting down. There is a lot of work that needs to be done.

As for the matter of perfect analyst, I am not quite sure what you expected. Creatures in 5e just have damage resistances/immunities/vulnerabilities, there aren’t parts of their bodies which aren’t resistant/immune/vulnerable, they just are as a whole. They don’t have “gaps in their (attack) reach” either. How could I make a feature to detect traits which don’t exist?

As for the scaling of enhanced analysis, I have to say that I wasn’t particularly planning on having it scale with level at all. The main reason I made the bonuses dependent on the intelligence modifier was just to make the class have to rely on intelligence. Without it, you could reasonably dump intelligence and work out perfectly well as an Investigator, which makes absolutely no sense. The way it scales off of is how many times you can use it, which is based on intelligence modifier and proficiency bonus. It wasn’t really meant to be something that increases with level. That being said, if I find an easy way to incorporate that, I shall. If I am struck with inspiration I will change the bonus.

And you also forgot to factor in one thing when you were saying that Bardic Inspiration was better than enhanced analysis. You can use enhanced analysis more and have more options to do with it. Investigators can use their feature a number of times equal to to their intelligence modifier + proficiency bonus, while bards can only use theirs a number of times equal to their charsima modifier. Bards can only bestow a bonus to a single attack roll attack roll, ability check or saving throw, while investigators can add a bonus to attack rolls, damage rolls, or a reduction to an enemies attack rolls and damage rolls.

Also keep in mind that bardic inspiration gives the bonus to a single attack roll, while enhanced analysis gives the bonus for all the attack rolls that creature makes until the end of your next turn.

If I can use enhanced analysis up to twice as much, create more options, and give the bonus multiple rolls, then I fail to see how it is infinitely inferior to bardic inspiration because it has an at max addition of 1.5 to the bonus.

This works, but if you do it this way, you have to make sure that all sub-classes get enough combat relevant features. If you move some combat-relevant features into the main class, you open up options for sub-classes that specialize in non-combat options (like Rogue's Thief or Mastermind, or the Druid's Circle of Dreams).

Oh I know that, but I thought that the idea of having the combat relevant features come from the sub-classes make a lot of sense in this case. They are already pretty good at out of combat things already, no? Seems irrelavant to load their sub-classes with exploration features too.

One last thing that I missed the first time: by the normal rules of communication, telepathy already implicitly allows the Investigator to share information they receive through Perfect Analyst with anyone in their telepathy range since communication does not cost an action. By the same note, the level 13 upgrade to telepathy doesn't do anything at all, mechanically speaking.

Take a careful look over the wording of the telepathy feature, it does indeed provide a mechanical benefit.

"Whenever you use your Perfect Analyst feature, you may also decide to telepathically send the information you learned to one ally within range.

At level 13, you can telepathically inform people up to ten allies within range about the information you recieved from Perfect Analyst at the same time. You cannot give anyone else this information until combat ends."

Before level 13, you can only inform one person what you learned by using Perfect Analyst per combat, but at level 13 you can tell your whole group what you learned.

No problem. If you get time, mind checking out the Spiritcaller?

I will get to it whenever I manage to get the time too. I have a week-end ahead of me and nothing to do with it, so I will hopefully manage to make a good review of your class in the next 60 hours.

[MoleMage]

Based on your responses I think I was judging your class through a lens (combat support) that you didn't set out to make it, so I want to apologize for that. Below I am clarifying two examples I made previously, but I won't try to defend them further as they were also filtered through that lens.

As for the matter of perfect analyst, I am not quite sure what you expected. Creatures in 5e just have damage resistances/immunities/vulnerabilities, there aren’t parts of their bodies which aren’t resistant/immune/vulnerable, they just are as a whole. They don’t have “gaps in their (attack) reach” either. How could I make a feature to detect traits which don’t exist?

5e may not allow for targetting specific locations on a creature, but knowing that some parts of a creature are less fireproof can be modeled in the abstract by removing or reducing fire resist or immunity, and knowing that a creature has a gap in its reach can be modeled by giving it a penalty to attack rolls (or an ally a bonus to AC). My intended suggestion was that Perfect Analysis offer explicit and unique ways to apply the information it grants.

And you also forgot to factor in one thing when you were saying that Bardic Inspiration was better than enhanced analysis. You can use enhanced analysis more and have more options to do with it. Investigators can use their feature a number of times equal to to their intelligence modifier + proficiency bonus, while bards can only use theirs a number of times equal to their charsima modifier. Bards can only bestow a bonus to a single attack roll attack roll, ability check or saving throw, while investigators can add a bonus to attack rolls, damage rolls, or a reduction to an enemies attack rolls and damage rolls.

I did acknowledge above that Enhanced Analysis has more uses per rest and applies longer, which I probably underestimated the benefits of at higher levels. However, my intended point was that inspiration compensates with a larger expected return later on, more types of checks it applies to, and most importantly that while Investigator ONLY has this feature, bard has inspiration AND full spellcasting. Progression on this feature past the second ASI would allow it to really double down on those traits it is better at, giving a compelling reason to choose Investigator over "bard but with different narrative".

Before level 13, you can only inform one person what you learned by using Perfect Analyst per combat, but at level 13 you can tell your whole group what you learned.

My point was that communicating any information through means available to your character is by default a non-action (therefor characters with telepathy can, by default, use it to talk to allies for free, even not on their turn). Once you get telepathy, the only reason you can't share information you learn from Perfect Analyst (which is just normal information gained) with your allies (which telepathy lets you talk to freely) in range with no extra action required is if you specify in one of those features that you can't. Right now, you are giving players a special quality that already has rules (even if they are in the monster manual), restricting their use of that feature to less than the existing rules (you can only send this information to one person), and then letting them use the full version again as their entire level 13 class feature (or at least in a practical sense, their limit is now ten people, which is still a cap but is more than most characters will ever need to use). The only thing I can see improved telepathy adding not implicit in telepathy is an escape clause from the "DM can impose reasonable restrictions on the number of times characters can do things that aren't actions" rule.

First of all, let me thank you for being so helpful to me and giving me such honest and useful criticisms. They must have took quite a while to do, and I am glad that you put so much time into it. Please don't find my following message as aggressive.

For what its worth, I appreciate your responses about motivation and philosophy when designing your class. It helps me to understand the class better, and I try to apply it when providing secondary feedback, to varying degrees of success (we all have our existing expectations and I'm not always good at setting them aside).

Also I am sorry I asked you for feedback again. I got mixed up in the feedback frenzy and thought I was asking a new person. My intent was not to heckle but to spread the word more.

EDIT: I only responded to the most recent post because that's what I saw when I opened the thread on mobile. I will go back and read the rest of what I missed in the morning and respond where follow-up seems appropriate. Also I'll add some proper formatting when I do.

EDIT EDIT: Formatting for the above. Added the below.

I admit that the crafting is inspired by older editions, but for good reason- In my opinion, part of the charm of an builder class is the act of building itself. If the appeal is that you make things, it should feel like you're making things, and sometimes things go wrong with that. In extended campaign, this often comes down to "I spend a week while we're in town in my workshop, here are my rolls, I succeeded on these three but had to re-try my fourth". It's a hassle, but that's because building is hassle. I feel like if the class just gave results for Inventions, it would lose some of the impact and feeling of accomplishment of building your Invention

Now that you mention it, I've played at least 2 characters who focused on building things in 3.X, and zero in 5th edition. You're probably right.

The great and difficult thing about Inventions, especially the Gadgets, is that there is no real intent. Both can be actively wielded items, or both traps. If you want to make a flamethrower, you'd use the fourth Invention. If you wanted to make a servo-gauntlet to enhance your punches, that's the fifth. If you want to make a trap that showers the target with spikes, that could be the first. If you want to make a trap that launches a single spear at a target, that's the fifth.

I see now that activating 4 is an action or trigger (happens once), whereas 5 is just an attack (happens as many times as the thing has attacks); if you're making experimental chainsaw-swords for your fighter there's a reason to use each.

Hmm.. not sure what's going on there. It's formatted just fine for me on desktop and mobile. I'll drop them in a spoiler here just in case, I suppose.

I adjusted the zoom on my page and can now see all of the details. Oddly enough, it worked at both 80% zoom and 110% zoom, but not 100% zoom.

Alchemical Concoctions are limited by Invention Points. Drafting a Recipe requires Invention Points, and if you destroy the Recipe, you currently existing Concoctions brewed with that recipe go inert shortly thereafter. If you mean how many you can have total, rather than how many kinds, there is no listed upper limit. As many as you can afford! But all have a maximum lifespan of 12 days (7 days active, then cumulative +20% chance of failing for every day after).

I meant the maximum batch size (right now it is just limited by resources).

So I have them break down instead to immediatley refund the Invention Point as soon as its not useful. That said, I've been tossing around the idea of changing Ablative Armor to reduce its bonus by 1 for each it, so it's not as much a one-and-done feature.

I just really like the idea of my fiery sword having a special contraption that distributed alchemist's fire along the blade, and when the fire stops I just slap a new bottle into the contraption and the blade is fire again. As it is, these upgrades are fairly cheap scrap-wise (but see below about scrap-bleeding).

Scrap is weirdly one the most contentious class features for those outside the Playground I've run my earlier drafts by. I stand by it. It would be easier to simply say Inventions cost gold, or cost nothing at all. But where's the fun in that? Scrap is mostly a ribbon already, but it does provide a way to create a way to give a sort of gold-value to Inventions. I've toyed with the idea of creating a Sidebar Variant that just uses gold instead, at a ratio of 1 scrap = 2 gold, but never went through with it.

My problems are two-fold. First, requiring a value assumes that your character is going to receive the standard amount of valuables. This hits close to home for me because I just recently was playing in a game (and now am playing a new character in the same setting after an almost TPK) where between level 1 and level 8 we made about 50g each (200g). Mundane equipment didn't drop off of our enemies, because they used a magical metal that tied to their life-force. Instead we got magical cards from them with consumable effects. Bosses dropped magical gear but it was all homebrew and in 5e core magic equipment explicitly lacks any equivalent value. In this circumstance, or in the circumstance that they are cut off from their normal supplies, the Inventor would be utterly unable to function.
Second, inventors only get half of the scrap back if they fail to make an item or if they decide to reclaim their invention points and make a different item. This means that even in a standard setting, they slowly bleed all of their scrap-wealth away unless they refrain from inventing new things. It encourages behavior that is opposite of the spirit of the class as I imagine it. Allowing the Inventor to reclaim 100% of scrap that they sink into an item remedies the scrap-tax that they currently suffer for being experimental, while giving a certain amount of built-in scrap or the ability to collect small amounts of scrap from non-useful materials each long rest gives them a certain Macguyver-esque draw and mitigates the lack of resources factor.

Daredevil's Tricks

• The hit point recovery for this class is not in your currently-posted tricks or features. The only thing it has is that draws of The High Priestess in the tarot let you get the most out of your short rests.
• Contagious Luck uses the same rules as Just Plain Lucky, right? I found the wording unclear taken on its own, but the longer wording in Just Plain Lucky cleared it up.
• Escape Death is great, but could maybe have the level requirement lowered. Daredevils can't willingly accept magical healing and half-orcs basically get this is a racial feature already, while barbarians get a similar feature at level 11 (though requiring rage).
• Hidden Talent should specify a duration (a single roll? one minute?), especially considering that skill usage is hardly universal.
• Does It's a dud! have an upper limit for re-affecting the same person? Because while the trap half is fine given the fact that they only go off once anyway, the crossbow part means that every crossbow-wielding enemy within minimum 110 feet of you has to make a Dex save just to attack, every turn. If you put an upper limit (like "no single machine or mechanism can malfunction this way more than once per short/long rest / per minute") on it, you aren't invalidating enemies for just having a certain weapon type.
• Unnoticeable should probably allow a perception check at a penalty or have a higher level requirement (it's basically a better version of the 2nd-level spell Invisibility constantly for free whenever you're out of sight).
• I like the mechanic of "it's available until it fails" for Wing and a Prayer. Fits very well with the theme of the class.
• You Know What to Do makes perfect sense in flavor and it functions, but its mechanics are strange to me. Sending active messages to people you've met is more complicated than saying that people will act in ways that align with your most important goals, even if those goals have changed. What follows is an alternate write-up of that feature: "When you provide aid to a creature or succeed on a Charisma (Persuasion) check to peacefully negotiate with them, they remember you and continue to work in the interest of your goals and beliefs even when you are not around, so long as doing so does not work against their goals and beliefs. You can declare at any point that a former ally has taken actions that help you resolve your current situation (such as hiding a particularly useful item in you or your companions' bags, sending a letter of recommendation to local authorities that arrives just in time to prevent your arrest on false charges, or even arriving themselves to assist in combat against a common foe). Once you have made this declaration, you cannot do so again until you finish a long rest, but your allies continue to act in your interests as normal." "Special: Your allies don't stop believing in you just because you are dead. When you are dead, you can make this declaration to provide aid to your companions a single time. If you later are raised and die again, you regain this special use of this feature."

Daredevil's Lucky Charms

• Bag of Useful Items' The Right Tools works as-is if you and your players don't mind a lot of bookkeeping, but you could simplify it by making it a number of items per day and setting a cap on the maximum value of any single item.
• In Here Somewhere's second clause has unclear wording. I think it's supposed to remove the need to Use an Item for items you have drawn from the bag, but it specifies "other objects", so right now it means that as long as you draw an item from your bag for free, you can use any items you can get your hands on for free for the rest of your turn.
• How does Alaine's Forcecutter function mechanically? As an anti-magic field? A dispel magic cast at X level? Does it consume one use per spell effect, per object or creature, or per round?
• Tarot of Secrets' 1d80 roll to sub in for tarot is unwieldy (I would just use 1d100 and disregard results over 78 and duplicates at my table). If you flavor it as destiny favoring certain outcomes, you can use a d100 natively and pick 5-10 tarots to increase the odds of happening. Stereotypes about the tarot and fortune tellers would suggest that Death, the Lovers, and the Fool are prime choices for increased odds, but mechanically Wheel of Fortune and the six ability score secrets are probably more satisfying to draw as a player. On the other hand doing it this way would prevent using the actual tarot deck as an option for the player.
• I agree with your above intent to make higher level features for Tarot of Secrets' better than additional draws. Some examples: shuffle your current cards back in and replace them 1/long rest, draw a single card after a short rest (probably at level 17), allow draws of the lesser secrets to subtract, instead of add, to their rank at the Daredevil's option.
• Token of Appreciation's Friends in High Places has wording "once out of these three times" which could be misinterpreted as "once you have used all three of these times" instead of "one of these three times". I did that at first read.
• Can you use I Know You!'s reflexive declaration of a contact as your Friend in a High Place for the day? I assume you can as long as you have the feature available.
• It would be cool to see one or two tricks that are exclusive to each lucky charm (a la Eldritch Invocations). Some of your existing ones could fit that mold (Icarus/Daedalus wings are dead ringers for the Bag of Useful Items, while You Know What to Do would line up perfectly with Token of Appreciation.

I like what you've added here. I could see myself taking different options for different character histories instead of always taking the same three things (looking at you Agonizing Blast), which is what you want in a feature like Tricks. All of your archetypes stay on both their theme and the class's theme of "luckiest son-of-a-gun ever born". I do have concern that too many of the features of your class are still passive, leading to relatively boring player choice in combat, but there are a number of things the class has to encourage or benefit improvisation, something that is always available to everyone but rarely optimized. I'd have to playtest it a couple times to know if the latter outweighs the former. I would still consider either removing the "no magic" restriction or giving them some type of reliable self-healing reasonably early on to replace all the Cure Wounds and Goodberries (and for that matter, Lay on Hands) they can't enjoy. A self-only but higher-value version of Song of Rest might do the trick.

[Ninja_Prawn]

Oh man, how did I not see this? I've been wanting to get into a base class contest for a while. I think I can work with this theme...

Anyway, this is actually the sixth 5e base class contest: see here for history.

[Requilac]

I am very sorry if I am coarse with you, I just find myself a little frustrated. I know you are trying to help though and fully support that. In fact, I beg of you to do it more. Please do not take this as any sort of attack, I am just beginning to feel as if I am repeating myself. Thank you for being such a great help to me.

Based on your responses I think I was judging your class through a lens (combat support) that you didn't set out to make it, so I want to apologize for that. Below I am clarifying two examples I made previously, but I won't try to defend them further as they were also filtered through that lens.

5e may not allow for targetting specific locations on a creature, but knowing that some parts of a creature are less fireproof can be modeled in the abstract by removing or reducing fire resist or immunity, and knowing that a creature has a gap in its reach can be modeled by giving it a penalty to attack rolls (or an ally a bonus to AC). My intended suggestion was that Perfect Analysis offer explicit and unique ways to apply the information it grants.

This seems like a very strange way to pull this off. Staring at a golem can't suddenly make it possible to poison that golem. Not to be offensive, but that notion is absurd. The feature is meant to give the investigator and their allies information, not alter the world around them because that's not what analyzing something does. I am already having ways to apply that information via enhanced analysis (which the class gets at second level now). Perfect Analyst is a feature meant to give information, not some sort of gaze attack which reduces an enemies abilities. What is your expectation precisely? I think you are misunderstanding the point of Perfect Analyst ,which should be an information gathering tool, and you want it to be some sort of spell like attack.

I did acknowledge above that Enhanced Analysis has more uses per rest and applies longer, which I probably underestimated the benefits of at higher levels. However, my intended point was that inspiration compensates with a larger expected return later on, more types of checks it applies to, and most importantly that while Investigator ONLY has this feature, bard has inspiration AND full spellcasting. Progression on this feature past the second ASI would allow it to really double down on those traits it is better at, giving a compelling reason to choose Investigator over "bard but with different narrative".

Enhanced Analysis is not a carbon copy of bardic inspiration, and should not be treated as such. Just because they serve the purpose of granting a bonus to a check does not mean that they are the same thing. Inspiration has a far different role, and has very limited use in combat, while enhanced analysis is specifically meant for combat. And keep in mind that yes the bard gets spell-casting, but the investigator gets other features as well. It does not only get enhanced analysis. A "bard with a different narrative" is only remotely close to what the Investigator class is and cannot do the same thing. A telepathic detective/explorer which carries out a systematic inquiry to discover and examine the facts about incidents to find the turth isn't even close to the same thing as a magical musician who inspires others with their words and talks with animals. I refuse to believe that my entire class is useless because one of its features provides a slightly lower bonus than the remotely similar feature of another class.

If I play a fighter who uses finesse weapons and has proficiency in stealth, does that make it infinitely inferior to a rogue with a different narrative? No, it does not, because they all have different features and can pull off very different things, even if they occupy the same niche and and both use a bow.

I am trying to actually develop a unique class with its own identity which is fun to use and balanced in play, I am NOT trying to see if I can trump the bard.

Also keep in mind that I said I would include a scaling factor in if I found a valid way to execute that.

My point was that communicating any information through means available to your character is by default a non-action (therefor characters with telepathy can, by default, use it to talk to allies for free, even not on their turn). Once you get telepathy, the only reason you can't share information you learn from Perfect Analyst (which is just normal information gained) with your allies (which telepathy lets you talk to freely) in range with no extra action required is if you specify in one of those features that you can't. Right now, you are giving players a special quality that already has rules (even if they are in the monster manual), restricting their use of that feature to less than the existing rules (you can only send this information to one person), and then letting them use the full version again as their entire level 13 class feature (or at least in a practical sense, their limit is now ten people, which is still a cap but is more than most characters will ever need to use). The only thing I can see improved telepathy adding not implicit in telepathy is an escape clause from the "DM can impose reasonable restrictions on the number of times characters can do things that aren't actions" rule.

The bolded statement is not true. I would advise you to look at page 190 of the PHB. It states that "You can communicate however you are able*, through brief utterances and gestures, as you take your turn."

*including telepathy

And I did indeed specify that you cannot share this information with anyone else. "Whenever you use your Perfect Analyst feature, you may also decide to immediately and telepathically send the information you learned to one ally within range. You cannot give anyone else this information until combat ends."

______


I am very sorry if I seemed aggressive, I just don't feel as if I understand what you are saying and it is beginning to frustrate me. It truly seems like you have an entirely different conception of what my class does then what I am actually building, and I feel like I am not actually proving anything to myself. This feels more like you are arguing that the I need to change the design philosophy of my class and not necessarily reviewing the existing mechanics.

Please continue Molemage, I need all the help I can get if I am to beat the outstanding competition I face. Thank you for all of your attempts. Please don't take it personally if I seem too agressive, I am just so terribly confused that I am not really even sure what this argument is over anymore.

[Requilac]

Oh man, how did I not see this? I've been wanting to get into a base class contest for a while. I think I can work with this theme...

Anyway, this is actually the sixth 5e base class contest: see here for history.

I am just calling it the first because it is the first to be organized in the manner which I am doing it. I am well aware base class contests have been created before.

[clash]

The deadline for this contest in June 23rd correct?

[Requilac]

The deadline for this contest in June 23rd correct?

Yes, the deadline is indeed June 23rd.

[WarrentheHero]

Yes, the deadline is indeed June 23rd.

Don't you think that's a little bit too long? I mean, that's two full months out from two days from now.
Honestly, even May 23rd is a bit of a long stretch from when you created the contest. At that rate, we'd have maybe 4 contests a year.

[Requilac]

Don't you think that's a little bit too long? I mean, that's two full months out from two days from now.
Honestly, even May 23rd is a bit of a long stretch from when you created the contest. At that rate, we'd have maybe 4 contests a year.

Wait a second, that was an error on my part, I meant to say May 23rd, not June 23rd. I have amended that in the rules. Thank you for catching me on it.

And I was actually planning on having six contests a year, not four.

[Ninja_Prawn]

Ah, sorry for the confusion. I just saw the "23rd" part and assumed it'd be this month. This is certainly the longest contest I've ever seen! I guess that gives me time to polish up my pdf at least...

[Requilac]

Ah, sorry for the confusion. I just saw the "23rd" part and assumed it'd be this month. This is certainly the longest contest I've ever seen! I guess that gives me time to polish up my pdf at least...

Why do you guys all keep saying this is the longest competition you have ever seen? It is a month and a week long, which is shorter than most of the 3.5 competitions. I just made the threads on the 15th, a week ago, and the deadline is one May 23rd, a month from now. The last 3.5e base class contest, It’s in our nature, was published on July 28th and ended on September 29th, a two month period of time. Which may I mention is longer than the current competition by three weeks.

Are you all forgetting that I just started the competition last week?

[Ninja_Prawn]

I think we're comparing it to previous 5e contests, to be honest. I don't know about the others, but I only write for 5e, so I'm not familiar with the way the 3.5 community does things.

[Requilac]

@ Molemage

I shall get to reviewing the Spirit Caller today, hopefully as soon as possible.

I think we're comparing it to previous 5e contests, to be honest. I don't know about the others, but I only write for 5e, so I'm not familiar with the way the 3.5 community does things.

I have never competed in the 3.5 contests either, but it doesn't mean I can't tell how long they take. How long do the 5e contest usually last? A month hardly seems like a too long period of time to create a fully established base class, mechanics and fluff all.

[PhoenixPhyre]

So I realized I had read the rules wrong. I had thought that the ban on changes took place after entry submission not after voting started.

I'm guessing the best thing to do would be to edit the submission post with the changed document, right?

Edit: and as to time, my submission took a total of about 3 days from initial concept to mechanics and fluff. If I had to provide art, it would take...forever

[Requilac]

So I realized I had read the rules wrong. I had thought that the ban on changes took place after entry submission not after voting started.

I'm guessing the best thing to do would be to edit the submission post with the changed document, right?

Edit: and as to time, my submission took a total of about 3 days from initial concept to mechanics and fluff. If I had to provide art, it would take...forever

Ha, imagine the nightmare this project would be if you couldn't edit it. You can still change it however you would like until the 23rd.

Regarding the new document, Do whatever you feel is best, so long as it does not break a pre-existing rule.

[MoleMage]

Why do you guys all keep saying this is the longest competition you have ever seen? It is a month and a week long, which is shorter than most of the 3.5 competitions. I just made the threads on the 15th, a week ago, and the deadline is one May 23rd, a month from now. The last 3.5e base class contest, It’s in our nature, was published on July 28th and ended on September 29th, a two month period of time. Which may I mention is longer than the current competition by three weeks.

Are you all forgetting that I just started the competition last week?

You have gotten a lot more response in a week than new contests normally do. I think the last 5e base class contest ended because they only had two entries even after an extended deadline on their third attempt or so.

I know you are trying to help though and fully support that. In fact, I beg of you to do it more. Please do not take this as any sort of attack, I am just beginning to feel as if I am repeating myself. Thank you for being such a great help to me.

We have been kind of talking past each other on many of these points, and even though we both have the best intentions it can get kind of frustrating. To that end, I will share the guide I used to design my class. Someone shared it in a different thread and it helped me wrap my head around the design intent and commonalities shared by DnD 5e core classes (or as near as I'm likely to get without actually seeing internal memos).

There were two points in that guide that motivated most of my concerns with the Investigator: first is the need for a core class mechanic in the first two levels to define your class's role (identity features in the guide), both in narrative, which you always had, and in the flow of combat, which you have now that you have moved Enhanced Analysis to level 2, so I consider this point resolved. My second concern was the "tier upgrades", significant power increases at 5, 11, and 17 which you placed within your archetypes and so were not visible when I provided the initial feedback. It looks like you've almost finished up your archetypes (each is missing one feature as of this time of writing) so once you've got those I'll do another bullet-point for your class with a fresh start.

With that in mind, when I look at one of these classes, I do so through the lens following questions (many are repeated from the above guide, just reworded for my own tastes and thought processes).

1. What is this class's role in an adventuring party?
2. What is this class's play fantasy? (that is, when I decide to play this class, how I want it to feel)
3. What is my bread and butter, or what will I be using my actions to do, in typical combat round at various levels of play in this class? (a good guideline is every level where proficiency increases, plus the level in which they gain their archetype)
4. What are my special functions, or what can I do that isn't my typical combat round at various levels of play in this class? (some classes don't have this, instead opting for more variety in their part 3. The rogue and monk are examples of that type of class)
5. What will I be doing when I am not combat?
6. Does what I am doing in 3 and 4 align with my play fantasy?
7. Does what I am doing in 5 align with my play fantasy?
8. Does what I am doing in 3 and 4 feel impactful?
9. For each class feature, what is its nearest analogue or analogues, and does it seem noticeably better or worse?

As an exercise, ask yourself all these questions in the context of the Investigator. Then, go look at a core class, preferably one that you feel is similar to the Investigator in a thematic sense, and ask the same questions as if you had written that class.

This feels more like you are arguing that the I need to change the design philosophy of my class and not necessarily reviewing the existing mechanics.

This isn't an entirely unfair statement, but the thing I want you to know is that in my mind, design philosophy and design narrative are only linked through questions 5 and 6 in the above list. My suggestions are intended to help you find the point between the one side--class fantasy and design narrative--and the other side--class design and mechanical role. You don't have to follow my exact suggestions, but please keep in mind that when I suggest that Investigators get some core functions related to combat, I don't want to take away their design narrative of "impossibly honed observational skills", or their class fantasy of "I want to play a character like Holmes or Poirot". Instead I want you to look at how you can fit those traits into DnD 5e's assumption that all classes will be useful in combat.

This seems like a very strange way to pull this off. Staring at a golem can't suddenly make it possible to poison that golem.

It sounds strange, but there is precedent. Elemental Savant (feat) makes spellcasters so good at using a specific element that they can even use it to hurt creatures normally immune to that element, such as fire for fire elementals. Ultimately, what I wanted was for Perfect Analysis to be closer to Enhanced Analysis so that the Investigator would have something to do in combat earlier on. Now that Enhanced Analysis is at level 2 it doesn't need to be. Many of the individual options for what you learn with Perfect Analysis are still unappealing (knowing whether a monster's attack bonus is above or below a specified value doesn't open any tactical options or motivate any decisions on my part, nor is it particularly fun in a narrative sense), but I would still use this feature for others (knowing about a monster's special traits).

Enhanced Analysis is not a carbon copy of bardic inspiration, and should not be treated as such.

Nor is a monk's Flurry of Blows a carbon copy of a fighter's Action Surge, or PhoenixPhire's Protean's Rapid Growth a carbon copy of Barbarian Rage. However, when measuring how effective a feature is (or a class is in combat), I always compare it to the nearest analogue or analogues if possible. For Enhanced Analysis, which gives an ally a bonus on certain types of rolls, that analogue was bardic inspiration. I wrote out a whole bullet point list trying to figure out why my gut was so sure that Enhanced Analysis needed a boost, and it boiled down to three things: first, inspiration is a secondary feature for the bard (core yes, but spellcasting is their primary). By contrast, analysis is a primary feature for the investigator, meaning that much more of their play satisfaction depends on it. So with that in mind, I really should have also compared it to Flurry of Blows, another resource-limited primary feature, not in balance as they are tactically very different, but in play satisfaction. Second, the feature at the time was at 6th level, which meant that for the first two levels the investigator did not have any unique impact on a fight (since Perfect Analysis is a flavor ability by and large); obviously this one no longer applies since you moved it to 2nd level. And third, I talked about scaling before, but that isn't why I felt like it was incomplete. Tying Enhanced Analysis's numbers to Intelligence is fine, but since it is a core feature, it needs to develop over time. Instead of looking for ways to make it stronger in numbers, look for ways to make it more interesting (unlocking additional usages of it, allowing multiple simultaneous usages at a higher cost, allowing usage outside of the standard action economy such as reactions). What's important isn't that its strength improves with levels. What's important is that I feel like I want to take more levels to see it change.

The short version for future quoting: I commented on Enhanced Analysis without fulling examining or explaining my reasons (sorry! I intuit when I should think a lot). Remember that a large amount of your player's satisfaction will come from this feature, and when I said scaling with class as in increases to effectiveness, I should have said development as in increases to interestingness (which can include effectiveness but doesn't need to).

The bolded statement is not true. I would advise you to look at page 190 of the PHB. It states that "You can communicate however you are able*, through brief utterances and gestures, as you take your turn."

I was incorrect about the not on your turn part (older editions leak through at my table sometimes), but I will still defend that you should be able to use telepathy to freely share simple information with any number of people on your turn by default, as it falls under the "however you are able" part of that quote.

And I did indeed specify that you cannot share this information with anyone else.

I know. My point here was that this feels bad for players unless there is a compelling balance reason. Since Perfect Analysis is intended to provide flavor, rather than mechanical bonuses (again, sorry about misreading that), there is no harm in letting the players share that information as freely as "brief utterances [made telepathically]" would allow. When you impose a restriction on the telepathy at level 2, it feels arbitrarily limiting. When you then lift the restriction as an entire level 13 class feature, it feels bittersweet at best. Consider making the level 13 version part of the telepathy feature or just not mentioning a specific number of people at all (leaving it up to the normal rules for how much you can say), then giving another telepathy upgrade at 13. To keep it in the same theme, you could make the feature something that allows telepathic communication to happen faster than normal communication, such as "At level 13, your telepathy has developed such that you communicate as fast as thought, rather than as fast as speech. When you use telepathy to communicate on your turn, there is no limit to the number of creatures within range you can communicate with and you can share five times as much information."

Please continue Molemage, I need all the help I can get if I am to beat the outstanding competition I face. Thank you for all of your attempts. Please don't take it personally if I seem too agressive, I am just so terribly confused that I am not really even sure what this argument is over anymore.

It will be my pleasure. I don't like to think of it as an argument though, since we have the same end goal (making the investigator as good as it can be). We're having a board meeting maybe. Sequestered design session.