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

[Kryx]

After Rereading Kryx's Sorcerer/Warlock Combination and the recent discussion around the Occultist's identity I was convinced that the Occultist belonged in the Sorcerer

Changes:

• Occultist merged in to the Sorcerer with the Patron identity intact. Hexblade added as a Sorcerer Archetype. Warlock removed (duplicate of Suffused Sorcerer). GOO added as Eldritch Sorcery
• The "seeker of knowledge flavor" of the Occultist is moved to the Mage. Eldritch Secrets renamed Arcane Secrets and added to the Mage class. The flavor fits great here and shores up the Mage.
• Grimoire added as a Perk for Sorcerers with a pact (Other Sorcerers can still take Ritual Caster)
• Eidolon perks require a Sorcerer with a pact

[Descole]

First thing first, love your theme system for magic. Your hard work really shows so thank you for bringing this massive creation to life.

Now some criticism and opinions:

I want to echo the sentiment that restricting some themes from some classes helps to add a level of uniqueness and flavour to the classes. For example that no matter how powerful a mage, no matter how clever, even with world-destroying magic at is beck and call: healing a simple wound is beyond his grasp. Or maybe Acolytes are barred from undeath unless they belong to a particular subclass as most gods find undeath distasteful.

I believe the telepathy theme should be merged with mind as telepathy is a rather narrow field (something its current spell list reflects) and I can’t imagine building a mind spellcaster without telepathy. One gets the feeling of a theme tax for wanting a complete set.

A similar thing about beast, plant and nature. There seem to be to much flavour overlap between them. I would propose either consolidating them to flora and fauna with those that don’t fit being put in some other theme or making the distinction clearer. At closer consideration it's mostly nature that I have a problem with. Maybe it could be more focused on the fey/spirit part in an animist way (all things have spirits) with spells like goodberry being moved to plant.

On the shadow spell creation, the unthemed dragons breath and chaos bolt the syntax seems to be incorrect.

Some spells feel like they belong to multiple themes, perhaps some spells could be shared across 2-3 themes? Not a lot of spells but just having it as a tool.

I am having a hard time coming up with which theme the classic sealing magic would belong, you know the “ancient magic that keeps the badguy locked away because he was too strong to kill”.

Themes is a very accurate term but it feels a bit gamey. Perhaps Spheres of magic, domains, essences, arts or similar would feel more at home coming out of the character’s mouth.

With a simple flavouring (from creating to simply throwing out the daggers) Cloud of daggers could be made into a telekinesis spell.

Maybe more summoning spells could be added together into a united summoning theme, probably works best if you decide to use double-themed spells.

[Ugganaut]

Mage, Sorcerer and Occultist do have a lot in common, because they all draw on arcane magic as their base. The source of power varies, how they attained it varies, and from their the powers beyond arcane spells varies.

Mage(Int): Purely academic, specializes in a school of magic in 4th year university :P Through extra study and practice, has the benefits of a specialization.

Warlock(Int): Maybe he attended wizard school, and learned the basics of arcane magic the exact same as a mage. In 4th year he stumbles on a way to gain power by communicating with a powerful being. From here, his power and progression differs greatly from the mage. It's more than a replacement of specialization, the features change as you are granted knowledge, and abilities not gained by your former mage classmates.

Warlock(Cha): The stereotype of the witch, they didn't go to school, but either sort out and made a pact with something dark, or maybe they were approach by a celestial being, or stumbled above a power fey etc. Either way they had to be confident and self-assured enough not just to do as they were asked/told/threatened, but to gain power in exchange for their service.

Sorcerer(Cha): They have magic in their blood. It's raw, powerful, and you have to learn to control it.

I was making the case for Charisma for Warlock to explain why I'd houseruled Int or Cha(like the Acolyte). I can see both. The base of all three classes might be the same(arcane magic), but the extra abilities/features they get as they progress differs somewhere from a fair bit to greatly. Just as an example, Sorcerers never use a book of any sort, and have surges of power from the magic within them. Warlocks gain special boons not seen in either Sorc or Mage, and the iconic Hex/Curse(which your current version of Suffused just lost by the looks). There's enough difference there to warrant separate classes imo, as long as the base features and origin/patron/specialization features reflect that change. There may be some cross-over mechanically like Grimoire and Spellbook, but overall they are different enough. I also prefer separate classes so it's flexible enough to fit into different campaigns and settings.

Psionics. This has to be one of the most debated things at our table over the last 20yrs :) One of our group started in Greyhawk, the rest of us started playing in FR. Like many, we all read the FR books like the Dark Elf trilogy and Time of Troubles. We started using psionics around that time in 2nd edition, and the was one main difference between Psions and Mages - Psionics had NOTHING to do with magic. It was internal power like a sorcerer, had extremely rare schools like a wizard, but no spellbook and it was not magic. Dispel Magic didn't work on a psionic effect. They didn't cast using verbal and somatic, they had things like visual effects, olfactory etc. In the novels, the Time of Troubles occurred when the gods were cast down, including the god of magic, and the arcane and divine magic went nuts or just stopped working. The the drow city, their was a family of psionics, and they suddenly became the strongest family as the others lost their casters.
During our games, psionics felt more restrictive, Body Adjustments healing didn't match the same level as clerics for example, but enemy casters couldn't dispel any of your effects either. It was so different to magic.
When they changed it to 'Psionics is a different form of magic', it lost a lot of that feeling(not all), but balance was a big issue, and having two sources of power not interact the way they did, was a big issue. But the powers/spells differed enough, the casting/manifestation components were different enough that it felt unique. If it is just another type of arcane magic, and their aren't enough features to distinguish it like the Sorc/Warlock/Mage, then yes, it's just another mage. Maybe a School of Psionics with a small set of features. Hopefully when 5e officially releases some psionics, it will have enough features to be it's own class. Loved the different components, and miss the Soul Knife terribly :)

[Marcloure]

First, about removing known themes cap. It makes the selection broader and all, but I feel like everyone will end up picking Life for back up Healing Word and eventually Revivify. Also, if by spending only two Magical Insights anyone can have super specialized spells like Portal, Dominate Creature or Time Hop, the goal of themes and thematic casters kind of falls apart.

I suggest to rule that someone can only learn a spell of mana cost X if they have learned other X spells from that same theme. For instance, if a caster wants to learn Revivify (cost 3), it must before learn 3 others spells from the Life theme. It ensures that you can't just take the best spells from a theme, only those who spend resources on it can get the better ones.

Another problem that comes back by removing the cap is that casters other than Mages will have very little reason to spend Magical Insights on situational spells. With the limit to the number of known themes, most casters would eventually run out of options and learn situational spells. But now, if they can just pick another more used spell from a third or fourth theme, or unlock a whole new theme, why should they spend a Magical Insight to learn Create or Destroy Water?

_____

About merging the Occultist and the Sorcerer. I understand why you did it, but I am not sure it is the best which can be done. I feel like the system is losing something when it rules that being born with power and being a pact keeper is the same thing.

Well, it makes perfect sense for the Occultist and the Sorcerer to share their features from Origin/Patron, after all, a Phoenix is what it is. But at the same time, I think, the Occultist shouldn't be able to bend the spells given to them as the Sorcerer can do with the power they were born with. Then I got myself wondering, what should the Occultist do beyond what their pact offers, and does it have to be cast more spells?

I mean, Occultists gain their magic from their Patrons, so why should an Occultist have that many other spells than what their pact offers? Also, from Wikipedia:

The most commonly accepted etymology derives warlock from the Old English wǣrloga meaning "oathbreaker" or "deceiver". However, in early modern Scots, the word came to be used as the male equivalent of witch (which can be male or female, but is used predominantly for females).

So, maybe both the warlock and the hexblade should be half-casters, but with other features like boons, hexes, charms or... something magical but not spells? Well, I guess that is what 5e tried to do with Eldritch Invocations and limited Pact Magic.

It's not a very concrete suggestion here, but when thinking about this, Disney's Doctor Facilier came to my mind, and a kobold or dragon cult leader chanting rituals while bathing in dragon blood to harden its skin, a healer in the woods or a witch doctor. Maybe that should be what a warlock does? I don't know. It's not exactly a caster, but someone who does have a bit of spells and also uses... unconventional forms of magic. A half caster, half feature based class (like the arcane trickster and monks, but not martial of course, or an artificer).

[Kryx]

Removing known themes cap

It makes the selection broader and all, but I feel like everyone will end up picking Life for back up Healing Word and eventually Revivify. Also, if by spending only two Magical Insights anyone can have super specialized spells like Portal, Dominate Creature or Time Hop, the goal of themes and thematic casters kind of falls apart.

Firstly, I really appreciate the feedback you provide as you seem to truly understand the project. Your feedback has been very valuable, keep it coming!

I fully agree with you here - removing the cap really opens up the game to cherry picking which goes far beyond what is a healthy level of diversity.

I suggest to rule that someone can only learn a spell of mana cost X if they have learned other X spells from that same theme. For instance, if a caster wants to learn Revivify (cost 3), it must before learn 3 others spells from the Life theme. It ensures that you can't just take the best spells from a theme, only those who spend resources on it can get the better ones.

Such a rule can fix part of the cherry picking, but does not fix cherry picking 1 mana spells (of which there are a great many). I think this, combined with the old hard limit or something like the old hard limit is a good way forward.

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

Merging the Occultist and the Sorcerer

I understand why you did it, but I am not sure it is the best which can be done.

Let me lay out the case for why it had to be done: Classes are like the definition of a planet: "'Clearing the neighborhood around its orbit' is a criterion for a celestial body to be considered a planet in the Solar System."
Classes follow the same idea: They must fully own their niche and lay claim to their space at the table.

My Occultist, and I'd also argue the RAW Warlock, did not accomplish that. A Mage whose class identity is about seeking knowledge can not coexist with an Occultist whose class identity was about seeking knowledge. In addition to that the benefits gained from a Patron are, and should be, the same as a Sorcerous Origin, which makes sense as you say: "after all, a Phoenix is what it is". The Sorcerer angle is super easy to defend with words like "otherworldly influence" and "a result of a pact" in their RAW descriptions. By RAW a Sorcerer has 3 options of origin, a pact being one of them.
I believe the result of dividing the Occultist as I did is the best logical conclusion of a class needing to fully own their niche and lay claim to their space at the table.

I think, the Occultist shouldn't be able to bend the spells given to them as the Sorcerer can do with the power they were born with.

Why not? An Occultist/Warlock has just been great power beyond their normal means of control. The idea that it sometimes surges in fantastic ways fully fits the flavor.

Then I got myself wondering, what should the Occultist do beyond what their pact offers, and does it have to be cast more spells?

I mean, Occultists gain their magic from their Patrons, so why should an Occultist have that many other spells than what their pact offers?

So, maybe both the warlock and the hexblade should be half-casters, but with other features like boons, hexes, charms or... something magical but not spells? Well, I guess that is what 5e tried to do with Eldritch Invocations and limited Pact Magic.

It's not a very concrete suggestion here, but when thinking about this, Disney's Doctor Facilier came to my mind, and a kobold or dragon cult leader chanting rituals while bathing in dragon blood to harden its skin, a healer in the woods or a witch doctor. Maybe that should be what a warlock does? I don't know. It's not exactly a caster, but someone who does have a bit of spells and also uses... unconventional forms of magic. A half caster, half feature based class (like the arcane trickster and monks, but not martial of course, or an artificer).

Agreed that this was the attempt that 5e made at the Warlock. I love the mechanical ideas of the Warlock (so much so that I made a whole system around much of their carcass), but I believe the execution sufficiently subpar. Perhaps I will be inspired in the future to make a class that is casting without really being casting, but that doesn't define a Warlock imo.

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

I haven't had time to read through the other 2 posts and don't have time to reply right now. I'll look at them later tonight.

[Ugganaut]

I suggest to rule that someone can only learn a spell of mana cost X if they have learned other X spells from that same theme. For instance, if a caster wants to learn Revivify (cost 3), it must before learn 3 others spells from the Life theme. It ensures that you can't just take the best spells from a theme, only those who spend resources on it can get the better ones.

The more restrictions you put, the more pigeon holed it feels. To get a mana 3 spell, you might have to take two spells you don't even want. That's a tax. Taxes aren't fun :)
Themes feels very limiting as it is. You have to buy most of them for starters using Magical Insights. Spell lists never cost you a resource.
Does every class really need to have the exact same amount of spells/themes? I agree the RAW wizard has far more options than other casters, but is it necessary to close the gap entirely? A sorcerer and warlock should probably have less themes than a wizard, as they get other things. Sorcerers don't study magic, they sort of get what they are given by their blood. Warlocks master some, but go after other boons via their pacts.
Personally I'd prefer to see each base class have a set of themes assigned, and gain extra(s) from certain features like School(pick one from the following list of themes), Patron etc. That way you'd even out the previous gap between wizards and others, but still have enough variations within each class and between classes.

Another problem that comes back by removing the cap is that casters other than Mages will have very little reason to spend Magical Insights on situational spells. With the limit to the number of known themes, most casters would eventually run out of options and learn situational spells. But now, if they can just pick another more used spell from a third or fourth theme, or unlock a whole new theme, why should they spend a Magical Insight to learn Create or Destroy Water?

This sounds like more of an issue with spell balance. Kryx fixed a lot of issues in that regard. There will always be niche spells. Create or Destroy Water might not be great for most, but in a desert campaign, you're party will love you. NPC fire brigades would use it too :)

About merging the Occultist and the Sorcerer. I understand why you did it, but I am not sure it is the best which can be done. I feel like the system is losing something when it rules that being born with power and being a pact keeper is the same thing.

I agree, it feels like it's losing something.

Well, it makes perfect sense for the Occultist and the Sorcerer to share their features from Origin/Patron, after all, a Phoenix is what it is. But at the same time, I think, the Occultist shouldn't be able to bend the spells given to them as the Sorcerer can do with the power they were born with. Then I got myself wondering, what should the Occultist do beyond what their pact offers, and does it have to be cast more spells?

Agreed again.

So, maybe both the warlock and the hexblade should be half-casters, but with other features like boons, hexes, charms or... something magical but not spells? Well, I guess that is what 5e tried to do with Eldritch Invocations and limited Pact Magic.

Love it.

[Kryx]

@Kryx: I cannot see the changed doc. When I click the link it says the URL doesn't exist or the link is broken.

Yeah, I've tried refreshing the URL about a dozen times and I'm still getting that 'page not found' response?

This should be fixed now. Let me know if otherwise.

You can also go to https://marklenser.com and it'll redirect you to /5e/, but the 5e url should work 100% now.

[Lacuna Caster]

This should be fixed now. Let me know if otherwise.

You can also go to https://marklenser.com and it'll redirect you to /5e/, but the 5e url should work 100% now.

I get the blank page the first time, but refreshing seems to work fine, and I don't get the 'page not found' message.

[Kryx]

I get the blank page the first time, but refreshing seems to work fine, and I don't get the 'page not found' message.

Yes, that's the situation I'm used to. Next step is to figure out why my host initially serves an old compiled version before you refresh a few times.

Thanks for checking!

[Kryx]

I've organized my replies by topic:

First thing first, love your theme system for magic. Your hard work really shows so thank you for bringing this massive creation to life.

Thanks so much for the praise and thank you for providing valuable feedback! Great to have you here!

Spoiler: Theme restrictions

Show

I want to echo the sentiment that restricting some themes from some classes helps to add a level of uniqueness and flavour to the classes. For example that no matter how powerful a mage, no matter how clever, even with world-destroying magic at is beck and call: healing a simple wound is beyond his grasp.

Or maybe Acolytes are barred from undeath unless they belong to a particular subclass as most gods find undeath distasteful.

I challenge you to come up with restrictions for each class. It would be a good exercise for both of us to properly consider the options.

I'll poke holes in the two you came up with above:

• Mages casting healing spells has been an option since at least D&D 3 via options like Mystic Theurge. They aren't available by default, but my system does not allow multiclassing so themes and perks are a way to achieve that diversity that has existed in D&D for a while. This very idea exists in a religion UA article as well. I think a subclass system would be a mistake as an Evocation Mage could become religious. Perhaps we create a system of allowed themes and then a perk to pick an unallowed theme, but creating that list would be difficult imo. Character concepts can be quite varied.
• Undeath Acolytes: You've made a huge assumption that all gods don't like necromancy. Some hate it, some love it, some don't care. To bar them all from it and then allow exceptions would be very difficult to manage.

The more restrictions you put, the more pigeon holed it feels. To get a mana 3 spell, you might have to take two spells you don't even want. That's a tax. Taxes aren't fun :)

Says the guy who wants to limit themes to certain classes which would lead to taxes to unlock those options once they are sufficiently desired. :)

Themes feels very limiting as it is. You have to buy most of them for starters using Magical Insights. Spell lists never cost you a resource.

The goal is for it to be limiting! 230 spells on a spell list is something my system is purposefully trying to avoid. ~120 has been the expectation since the beginning of this project and something around that area will remain the goal. Spell lists will not be part of this project. Possibly some class restrictions as mentioned above to Descole, but not spell lists. Take it or leave it.

Does every class really need to have the exact same amount of spells/themes? I agree the RAW wizard has far more options than other casters, but is it necessary to close the gap entirely? A sorcerer and warlock should probably have less themes than a wizard, as they get other things. Sorcerers don't study magic, they sort of get what they are given by their blood. Warlocks master some, but go after other boons via their pacts.

You've made several assumptions here. Every class except the Wizard can achieve around the same total number of spells as RAW. There is a bit less diversity once those decisions have been made, but that's the system's design goal (see above).
I'll focus on Wizards here as they are the largest outlier from RAW: Wizards don't necessarily want every theme. Some will and some won't. I expect most will be happy with 6+1 themes and several cherry picked spells as there are a LOT of options from that feature. We shouldn't assume that all Wizard characters want 30 themes. I question wether it should be an option, but if it is then something like a Perk that allows 1 more theme for each perk could be an option.

Personally I'd prefer to see each base class have a set of themes assigned, and gain extra(s) from certain features like School(pick one from the following list of themes), Patron etc. That way you'd even out the previous gap between wizards and others, but still have enough variations within each class and between classes.

As I challenged Descole above I'd challenge you as well: "I challenge you to come up with restrictions for each class. It would be a good exercise for both of us to properly consider the options."

Spoiler: Other Feedback

Show

I believe the telepathy theme should be merged with mind as telepathy is a rather narrow field (something its current spell list reflects) and I can’t imagine building a mind spellcaster without telepathy. One gets the feeling of a theme tax for wanting a complete set.

My goal is to have themes of similar sizes. Mind is already at 28 spells. Telepathy would add 6, pushing it to 34 spells. Maybe it fits, but I'd really like to avoid having some themes with 34 and some with 13 so if there is a logical split there please do suggest it.

A similar thing about beast, plant and nature. There seem to be to much flavour overlap between them. I would propose either consolidating them to flora and fauna with those that don’t fit being put in some other theme or making the distinction clearer.

What if I want to make Poison Ivy as a character? That's the plants theme, not Nature or Beast. What if I want to make a character that loves beasts, but doesn't like nature? That's the Beast theme, not Nature.

At closer consideration it's mostly nature that I have a problem with. Maybe it could be more focused on the fey/spirit part in an animist way (all things have spirits) with spells like goodberry being moved to plant.

Nature has 21 spells that vary quite a lot - there is hunting aspects, fey aspects, spirit aspects, nature aspects. I need more concrete suggestions - give me a suggestion for how to split Nature and a list of spells that belong in each theme.

On the shadow spell creation, the unthemed dragons breath and chaos bolt the syntax seems to be incorrect.

Fixed, though if you could use the issue tracker linked at the bottom of the site and include screenshots in the future that'd be great.

Some spells feel like they belong to multiple themes, perhaps some spells could be shared across 2-3 themes? Not a lot of spells but just having it as a tool.

There are a few that I've duplicated in to multiple themes. If you have a list of them please do suggest them.

I am having a hard time coming up with which theme the classic sealing magic would belong, you know the “ancient magic that keeps the badguy locked away because he was too strong to kill”.

That's not a mechanical spell, but a plot point. It doesn't exist as a spell in any edition of D&D (after 3) or PF that I know of.

Themes is a very accurate term but it feels a bit gamey. Perhaps Spheres of magic, domains, essences, arts or similar would feel more at home coming out of the character’s mouth.

Spheres of Power is a very similar system for Pathfinder. I tried to avoid that word to avoid associating with it.
Domains are used by Acolytes.
I agree with what you're saying. Perhaps Spheres or something like Spheres could be an option - please do make more suggestions!

With a simple flavouring (from creating to simply throwing out the daggers) Cloud of daggers could be made into a telekinesis spell.

I thought of this too. Same situation for Sword Burst and Blade Barrier, but then you'd actually need the blades. Casters generally can't carry 10-30 blades and Telekenesis can't make multiple so my thoughts ended there.

Maybe more summoning spells could be added together into a united summoning theme, probably works best if you decide to use double-themed spells.

In the process I had a summoning theme at some point, but ultimately came to the conclusion that they belong in other themes. A caster who summons beasts has little in common with a caster who summons demons or devils for example. The mechanics are similar, but the flavor is totally different.
Also keep in mind that summoning spells are something that need a complete overhaul still. I've created https://bitbucket.org/mlenser/tablet...mmoning-spells to handle that.

Spoiler: Warlock Identity

Show

Warlock(Int): Maybe he attended wizard school, and learned the basics of arcane magic the exact same as a mage. In 4th year he stumbles on a way to gain power by communicating with a powerful being. From here, his power and progression differs greatly from the mage. It's more than a replacement of specialization, the features change as you are granted knowledge, and abilities not gained by your former mage classmates.

I would argue this is a case of the Warlock as a class being a bad option. If the character is already level 2 or 3 then Warlock-ism as a feat/perk makes far more sense. The character could ask for more Intelligence for example. It's still a Wizard, but one that made a deal for power.

Warlock(Cha): The stereotype of the witch, they didn't go to school, but either sort out and made a pact with something dark, or maybe they were approach by a celestial being, or stumbled above a power fey etc. Either way they had to be confident and self-assured enough not just to do as they were asked/told/threatened, but to gain power in exchange for their service.

This 100% fits the combined Sorcerer model. Read the RAW description of a Sorcerer and you'll see that it includes 3 possible sources of power: Bloodline, Event, or Pact.

the iconic Hex/Curse(which your current version of Suffused just lost by the looks)

Hexing is fully integrated in to the Hexblade. I could see the idea of hexing working on a Witch-type class that is something similar to the PF Witch that live alongside the Suffused Sorcerer, but that's nothing like what was available before.

I agree, it feels like it's losing something.

Agreed again.

Love it.

See my replies above about warlock being "lost".

Spoiler: Psionics

Show

Psionics

There is so much crossover between Arcane and Psionics. If you look at Psionic systems throughout the ages many psionic spells are pure copies of arcane spells.
Psionics is just another source of power - like Arcane or Divine. See 4e or PF2 for these "sources of power". It's different, but still follows the same structure. Psionics wholey being different from magic is not the best design imo. It leads to far too many problems and doesn't actually gain an identity from it (other than having a meta identity of being under or over powered).

miss the Soul Knife terribly :)

The Soul Knife is fully available as an archetype of the Psionicst right now.

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

On this topic I actually think Psionics is far closer to the Monk than it is to the Mage. A Mage/Psionicist merger would make sense from a subclass point of view, but I believe the Psionicist is more like a caster version of the Monk. This idea is also true in 4e where Psionic charcters and Monks had the Psionics power source.

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

This sounds like more of an issue with spell balance. Kryx fixed a lot of issues in that regard. There will always be niche spells. Create or Destroy Water might not be great for most, but in a desert campaign, you're party will love you. NPC fire brigades would use it too :)

Agreed that there are always niche spells. Create or Destroy water is niche, but can become very important in campaigns where the players can become stranded in the ocean, on islands, in deserts, in space, etc.

[Kryx]

If someone wants to take on a large project I would love help processing The (Not Really) Complete Tome of Spells. There are many garbage spells in the list, but some good options. If someone could filter through them and provide a list of options and where they fit in my themes I'd greatly appreciate it.

I'm up to "Blast of Sand" so not very far.

[Marcloure]

I am having a hard time coming up with which theme the classic sealing magic would belong, you know the “ancient magic that keeps the badguy locked away because he was too strong to kill”.

There are some 6 mana spells that could accomplish some of that. Plants has Entangling Imprisonment, Planes has Planar Imprisonment, and Fate has Wish which I think could do that too. And of course, the DM can always make up rituals far beyond the limits of spells.

[Kryx]

Changes:

• Theme limit added back. 1+PB. Perhaps a perk can be added to learn an additional theme if there is a need to extend the limit.
• Added some new theme descripts (Thanks Marcloure)
• Goodberry moved to the Plant theme
• Added Sandblast to the Earth theme
• Modify Memory moved from 4 to 3 mana (5th level by RAW).
• Many Naturalist subclasses themes updated
• Released a first draft the of Warden archetype for the Naturalist. It is a tanky archetype as a counterpoint to the striker oriented Ranger.
• Released the first draft of the Avenger archetype for the Acolyte. The Vengeance Domain has been removed (absorbed by Avenger), Channel Divinity 3rd use moved to 18th level, Divine Avatar added as 20th level feature.

[tyresias11]

It's really wonderful to see this project going strong.

I wholeheartedly encourage more subclasses like the warden and the Avenger. Hopefully the other caster classes get similar options as well. I am really looking forward to this and I am glad you are still working on this project. It became my main rpg system. However please don't leave us summoner/necromancer enthusiasts out of the fun. I don't mind changing some stuff to suit my table, but summoning is so complex that I would only trust your balancing methods. Hopefully soon. 🙏

I have some questions:


1. Is skalds 11 level feature made to work with cantrips? In addition to the empowered cantrips perk that gives casting modifier to cantrips? Same question for Bloodrager's 6th level feature (arcane fury)

1a. To continue with Bloodrager. Her 14th level feature allows her to cast a spell on herself when she enters rage without spending an action. However, in the 3rd level feature it states she cannot concentrate on spells while raging. What are some examples of this and what is the intent behind it?

2a. Every other gish in your system gets at 11th level some sort of passive form of dealing more damage with their attacks. Exception might be the Avenger and Ranger but it's still very easy to achieve. Warden gets a 1d8 when she fuses a spell with an attack (using her natural strike feature might be more appropriate wording wise). This seems substantially inferior to the other gish 11th lvl options, including the other gish in the naturalist class. Is this intentional?

2b. A lot of those passive bonuses at 11lvl are per attack. As a result, dual wielding gets a larger value out of it compared to two-handed weapons. Is this also intentional?

3. Storm herald - 3rd level feature does damage every round (bonus action) to all nearby ENEMIES. Under the desert option where the damage is increased, it states nearby creatures. Does that include your allies? Also, what does ALL/ANY OTHER creatures in your aura, means? Like, aside from those affected by the aura's damage? That is in most options of that feature and the wording confuses me.

3a. We experimented with a storm herald Barbarian and we felt the aura thing is very very underwhelming. The cases where she was surrounded by more than 2 enemies at the same time was exceptionally rare for her aura to pull its weight. The short range, the negligible damage at higher levels (3 damage aoe every round at level 5 is really nice. At 15 is just an annoying thing to track that does virtually nothing) result in a pretty underwhelming experience for my player so far. I am sure the math behind it is reasonable. I am just mentioning the delivery this feature had to us so far. At least I allowed her to be able change her aura theme every time she rages instead whenever she takes a level (which is basically never in our table, we start high but progress extremely slow). Now she began to use her auras creatively for its utility and control, which I assume was the original purpose anyway. Which is great because barbarians can feel like they do the same thing over and over most of the time.

4. What do you think of a perk similar to favourite spell feat that modified a single spell. More often than not, I have players that really love to invest and make one spell their signature thing. And I love this. I wanted to offer an option for such cases, where a single spell can get a few small bonuses. I made one that adds +1 to the DC (i know u hate numerical bonuses), and adds a free old metamagic option like silent, distant or something of the minor options u had back when u used metamagic for everyone. What's some criticism against that idea? The numerical bonus part is not an issue for me or my table so skip that or feel free to suggest something similar.


5. Fighter's Parry and Shield block maneuvers are exactly the same thing. One requires a melee weapon and the other a shield. Could they be possibly fuse into one by adding some prerequisites at the end of the description? It seems redundant to me.


6. Fighter's Remarkable Athlete feature says that u get advantage in one of the aforementioned skills as long as you don't have already double proficiency in any of them. I remember that u were going away from the double proficiency mechanic. I am probably talking out of my ass here, I just wanted some clarity.


7. While I think that berserker subclass is one of the better designed subclasses, the zealot is probably my least favourite. And the reason is it's situational -sometimes never coming up in the entire campaign- features (warrior of the gods and 14th lvl feature). This is a personal pet peeve. But this subclass gets value when you know you will be in a grittier dangerous campaign, or when resurrection is a freely available spell (which for a lot of settings, it is not). The subclass seems to shine under narrow and certain conditions, and even then it's more of a AHA!! moment that you may use again in a few months. Maybe. The fantasy behind it is excellent. The situational mechanics that are further relevant or not, dependent on individual settings/DM is something I cannot imagine anyone enjoying. Contrary to every other Barbarian subclass that gets features that adds so much to the way they play. And they do this often. The zealot, not so much. (i am again highlighting that barbarians are the one class that can often feel like you have very very limited options and choices, and zealot adds salt to that wound). Monk of the Long death 10 lvl feature does something similar but monk in general and the very Archetype itself offers a lot more to offset this situational feature. Detect portal by Horizon Walker is similar. Am I fine with situational features? Yes sure. But why would I do that when I can give it something that is more more fun and used in more situations while maintain the flavor of the Archetype?
Not a fan of dead features that would be used once or twice and then never again. I would add the detect portal as an addition to another feature.

8) How do you determine success or failure in Acolyte's divine intervention future? Do you roll something? Or does it mean that it's up to your DM to decide whether your God helps you or not (i am always against such methods. Good DM = incredible feature, Bad DM = underwhelming feature). I want my Players to have more agency over their characters since they are the ones who have that personal bond with their God/deity/divine source/whatever.

9) Acolyte protection domain 6th lvl feature named divine allegiance. At 6 lvl its 10 feet and then it becomes 30 feet at 18 lvl. This is again a feast or famine like thing. Very very rarely a game will go up to 18 lvl. 10 feet sounds about right at the Start but it could be pumped to 20 feet at 11 like other similar features. I changed it in my table to do exactly that.

10) Acolytes light domain, 14 and 18 lvl features are both a long rest aura spells that last a minute. Do they stack?
Is it intentional that a paladin acolyte will get way more value from this domain compared to a ranged priest? I am Okey with certain subclasses to be more successful with specific domains. On the other hand, such a shame that a cool, light domain full caster priest (a very common Archetype) gets a substantially lesser value from this domain compared to a melee tankier paladin or even Avenger. This is honestly very minor as the same case can be applied to many other subclasses. Probably just me being overly obsessed with having mechanics follow rather than dictate character concepts.

Some minor stuff:

A) Monk of the sudden storm first feature is the same as the fire one. It has the same name and all.
B) Monk of tranquility says u can cast spells from the life or protection domain. You choose one and stay with it I guess?
C) Naturalist's circle of the shepherd 3rd lvl feature named speech of the woods overlaps with the base naturalist 2nd level feature: beast speech.
D)

[Ugganaut]

Was having a look at Fighter and Barbarian this morning. Love both classes, they look and feel really good. Really want to play a Bloodrager, but our current games have been underway for years, so can't just yet. I noticed "You gain a measure of magical understanding as shown in the Magical Insights column of the Bloodrager table.", but I can't find the table.

"The goal is for it to be limiting! 230 spells on a spell list is something my system is purposefully trying to avoid. ~120 has been the expectation since the beginning of this project and something around that area will remain the goal. Spell lists will not be part of this project. Possibly some class restrictions as mentioned above to Descole, but not spell lists. Take it or leave it."
Ah ok, limiting is the design goal.
We have games that have been running for years, so most of the characters need to be converted. The wizard can't be converted without losing spells, and that doesn't make sense to me. Previously, unlike clerics that get a whole list and then prepare from that list, Wizards learn how to cast arcane magic - not some, all. The skills and method to learn a magic missile spell is the same as web. A wizards list is whatever arcane spells he can find or create, and there is a limit by the source of magic(divine vs arcane). The lists can be modified by domains, archetypes etc, but the Mystic Theurge for example, is never the healer a cleric is. A religious wizard doesn't necessarily have access to divine spells, and if so(Theurge) it's very limited. If someone wants more than that, then either multiclass into cleric, or be a straight cleric with the knowledge domain - wizard isn't the solo class for you(I know your system doesn't allow this). I was trying to make Themes work for our group, but it doesn't seem possible, which really sucks. I have no idea how to add spell lists back, and it's woven into so much of the system it doesn't work without it. Both lists and themes would be ideal imo. Sucks for me :)

Really appreciate all your hard work mate, and your willingness to discuss it with us. I'll try take another look at the whole thing more thoroughly when I get more time, huge fan of the project.

Edit: Do you have a master list of spells I could work with? As opposed to a separate page for each theme with descriptions. If not I'll start copy/pasting, no drama.

[Marcloure]

Wizards learn how to cast arcane magic - not some, all. The skills and method to learn a magic missile spell is the same as web. A wizards list is whatever arcane spells he can find or create, and there is a limit by the source of magic(divine vs arcane).

Sorry my intrusion, but I'll have to question you there.

Although my 4e background likes to tell divine magic from arcane and primal magic, technically, it defines how one obtains and cast spells, and that is it. For the universe and the laws of magic, there are only spells, and they are neither arcane nor divine. There is a bunch of examples of that out there: Cure Wounds is not innately divine, bards have access to it, as there is also nothing arcane in Hold Person or in Control Water, as druids, clerics and wizards have both of it.

More than that, wizards do NOT posses access to every arcane spell. Sorcerers, warlocks and bards all have spells that are beyond the reach of Elminster himself, as do paladins have spells that even the most devout cleric could never possess.

Spell lists are things arbitrarily defined, and we also have examples of spells that are simply limited from a class because it was decided so. Why the heck even draconic sorcerers can't cast Freezing Sphere and Flaming Sphere? And why can't a wizard cast Water Walk or Dominate Beast when a sorcerer can? Shouldn't the wizard be able to learn it if the spell is arcane? But then, what even is an arcane spell?

Kryx's houserules keep the spell selection limited to a certain list, but instead of one arbitrarily picked by the designers, it lets one build its own spell list. I think that is better than to guess which spells a wizard should or should not cast, if that wizard studied magic under a wandering healer, if it leaned to read spells with a hag in the woods or if it frequented the grandest university of battlecasting. More, as that wizard grows through adventures, it might learn to do something else. So, in the end, I guess I prefer to let the wizard build its own spell list.

[Descole]

I challenge you to come up with restrictions for each class. It would be a good exercise for both of us to properly consider the options.

This will not be perfect but let's give it a go:

Acolyte:
Undeath (This is assumptions of me but it simply fit with my vision of DnD, clerics who are really into undeath and the rest avoid it.)
Arcane (Due mostly to the old Arcane/Devine devide.)
Astral (Powers of the ectoplasmic stuff between planes doesn't seem like something gods would grant)
Mind/Telekinesis (Fits knowledge great and it might just be my biases but once more it simply doesn't feel divine, probably a side effect of the names.)

Mage:
Life (Simply being religious doesn't grant you divine power and it fits my view that life is the sole domain of the gods, I am well aware of the Naturalist double standard. Due to my short experience with DnD editions before 5, their choices have little sway on me.)
Devine (Due to mages not dealing with gods)

About here I came to the realization: A restrictive theme selection is a statement of how magic works but since DnD is such a kitchen sink it very hard to find some consistent reasoning for magic to be divided among the classes over multiple worlds. It all becomes some version of "This feels right". If I say that I don't want minstrels to cast elemental magic there really isn't any proper reasoning I can give. I have a specific way I imagine a fantasy world but I don't think my world is the right one to follow, after all, it would probably not include the minstrel. So in summary, restrictions are in my view a way to create a certain fantasy, they will only work if our fantasies are the same. Maybe they would work best as a variant rule left up to the DM. Good of you Kryx for pressing the issue and forcing me to think critically.

My goal is to have themes of similar sizes. Mind is already at 28 spells. Telepathy would add 6, pushing it to 34 spells. Maybe it fits, but I'd really like to avoid having some themes with 34 and some with 13 so if there is a logical split there please do suggest it.

My first instinct is for some intellect/emotion divide or outer/inner, maybe magic of focus/disruption or some other duality. In the interest of not putting all damage in one and buffs in the other Intellect(discipline, confusion, force)/Emotion(distraction, fear, heroism). Emotion steps on the toes of charm but I belive that is better than the current mind/telepathy.

Spheres of Power is a very similar system for Pathfinder. I tried to avoid that word to avoid associating with it.
Domains are used by Acolytes.
I agree with what you're saying. Perhaps Spheres or something like Spheres could be an option - please do make more suggestions!

Realm? (The Realm of the mind, the realm of fire, the realm of the divine, the realm of beasts)

[Ugganaut]

Sorry my intrusion, but I'll have to question you there.

No intrusion, it's a free for all :)

Although my 4e background likes to tell divine magic from arcane and primal magic, technically, it defines how one obtains and cast spells, and that is it. For the universe and the laws of magic, there are only spells, and they are neither arcane nor divine. There is a bunch of examples of that out there: Cure Wounds is not innately divine, bards have access to it, as there is also nothing arcane in Hold Person or in Control Water, as druids, clerics and wizards have both of it.

Good points. I guess I prefer, probably due to nostalgia, the identify and restrictions that the lists provided - but 5e RAW had flaws. Yes a Bard has access to some healing spells(and good point that they are technically arcane - or just "magic"), but they never got the full Life theme list. That was a key part to the clerics identify for me, that full Life theme, which is probably not suited to all clerics to be honest.

More than that, wizards do NOT posses access to every arcane spell. Sorcerers, warlocks and bards all have spells that are beyond the reach of Elminster himself, as do paladins have spells that even the most devout cleric could never possess.

Good point again. I should have said most arcane :) The Paladin/Cleric issue I whole-heartedly agree with, that was a huge issue for me. Lay on Hands able to cure poison and disease before a cleric...horrible design. I love Kryx's changes to this.

Spell lists are things arbitrarily defined, and we also have examples of spells that are simply limited from a class because it was decided so. Why the heck even draconic sorcerers can't cast Freezing Sphere and Flaming Sphere? And why can't a wizard cast Water Walk or Dominate Beast when a sorcerer can? Shouldn't the wizard be able to learn it if the spell is arcane? But then, what even is an arcane spell?

True, although those lists have been around for so long, it feels like part of the identity and classes for me. I can't convert the spells my 9th level wizard can cast currently using Themes, so it's not working for me. Completely agree with the Draconic/Flaming Sphere, wizard waterwalk etc. One of my pet hates was Produce Flame vs Firebolt. Again, Kryx fixed those options by fixing the spells and rebalancing them all.

Kryx's houserules keep the spell selection limited to a certain list, but instead of one arbitrarily picked by the designers, it lets one build its own spell list. I think that is better than to guess which spells a wizard should or should not cast, if that wizard studied magic under a wandering healer, if it leaned to read spells with a hag in the woods or if it frequented the grandest university of battlecasting. More, as that wizard grows through adventures, it might learn to do something else. So, in the end, I guess I prefer to let the wizard build its own spell list.

That's true, assuming all casters learn the same way, no reason a wizard couldn't get full access to the Life theme(as an example). In our games at least, that's not the case. There was a reason clerics didn't go looking for spellbooks/prayerbooks, because that's not how they got their spells(learned). Their spells were granted to them by prayer - the whole list, they just chose which ones after a long rest, that they had access to the next day. So the list wasn't as extensive as the wizard, but the type of magic had both overlap and distinct differences. The overall list might vary slightly depending on the god, but we never found new cleric spells we could then learn/cast. Wizards had the potential to have more spell options in their spellbook(not initially, but long term), but they had to build that spell list by research and discovery. The clerics spell list was all cleric spells of appropriate level - and then both classes memorize/prepare their active spell list for the day ahead. The 9th level wizard will never have the amount of spells to choose from equal to or more than the 9th level cleric, because he just doesn't research/discover that many - in our game least. I can't bring the spell list from the 9th level wizard into the theme system, therefore it feels more restrictive. The wizard can now be learn Life spells, less restrictive, but that's not the limitation I enjoy playing.
Unless I was making up a wizard who hated the idea of healing himself and others(in the Theme system), I would always choose Life theme. Always. Each round you can only do things determined by actions. You could collect 10 variations of a range sphere spell, but it's borderline pointless except for damage type and additional effect. So I'd choose Life, one or two damage styles depending on flavour I was going for(eg Fire, Force), if there was a theme with better than average protection, I'd choose that if it fit, and then cherry pick the rest for utility, situational, and flavour. The usual role of a cleric is bundled into a single theme that every caster can now choose - you don't need religion for the Life theme either, no prereqs. And I would absolutely choose it before looking for my other themes, just as a base, unless it didn't fit the character at all. I'd feel compelled to metagame each choice, because after your theme selection, the chance of you finding a spellbook with your themes is low(except maybe Life, because 90% of wizards will probably have it), and therefore research/discovery is greatly reduced.

Honestly this just seems like my problem, and our tables clinging to nostalgia. Certain things we are just set in our way of thinking, and it doesn't fit with the goals Kryx has stated for his Themes.
Lists can be carefully crafted for each classes, I just don't think they did a good job in RAW. I think it would be eaiser with Kryx's rebalancing of spells and the mana system. But we all seem to have different opinions on what belongs where, how much limitation and what areas should be limited. At the end of the day, this is Kryx's system, and he decides.
Happy to discuss any of these things, but I don't want to harp on(I tend to a lot) or detract from what Kryx is trying to achieve. I need to find a way to change it for our game(don't think it's possible), but there is still so much I love in his system overall, so I'll try to provide feedback on the other areas in the future.

[Ugganaut]

haha, I just read Arcane Secrets. I don't know if that just appeared recently, or I missed it. With the limitations I listed before, I think I can make it work for our table :)

[Marcloure]

haha, I just read Arcane Secrets. I don't know if that just appeared recently, or I missed it. With the limitations I listed before, I think I can make it work for our table :)

It was passed from the Occultist to the Mage when the Occultist class was murdered >:)

The spell researcher is now sole the Mage and the powered-by-external-things is sole the Sorcerer.

[Ugganaut]

It was passed from the Occultist to the Mage when the Occultist class was murdered >:)

The spell researcher is now sole the Mage and the powered-by-external-things is sole the Sorcerer.

Murdered, lol. Yeah I don't like the combined Sorc/Warlock, but as I said, not my system, I've put my two cents in.

Edit: I think there is enough of a different to have mage, sorc and warlock. I don't see "seeker of knowledge" to be strictly the same. A fighter can be a seeker of knowledge in the area of History. A mage might be a general arcane, or a sage type area of specialty, and a warlock the occult. Sorc is all blood :)

[tyresias11]

I love the cavalier fighter subclass. I love the tank theme and it will allow to fulfill certain fantasies. Can anyone suggest me an alternative to the 3rd lvl feature Born to the Saddle? I would like this to be an optional feature side by side with a non mount option to allow both Archetypes and not to be pigeonholed into a mount rider.

Every other feature in this subclass works without the mount anyway.


Also, this is a bold question but... Is anyone aware of a skills system that departs from the specific ability modifiers?
I honestly could never stand that my Druid who dedicate her entire life to the intersection of arcane and divine, will always be inferior to any arcane lore related skills because it's based on intelligence.

And in general I am really not a fan of this limitation. It promotes boring, archaic and narrow minded limitations to characters. Why my rogue who was raised in the wilds is inferior in nature Lore or survival checks? Why does she need to sacrifice elsewhere to increase a stat that she might not be interested at all.

Has anyone seen any system somewhere that allows characters to be equals based on their story and not their class limitation?

I also can understand people attachment to tradition and why they prefer it otherwise but I am really interested to a solution rather than an argument. I honestly never heard a counterargument remotely relevant anyway 🙅

[Kryx]

It's really wonderful to see this project going strong.

I wholeheartedly encourage more subclasses like the warden and the Avenger. Hopefully the other caster classes get similar options as well. I am really looking forward to this and I am glad you are still working on this project. It became my main rpg system. However please don't leave us summoner/necromancer enthusiasts out of the fun. I don't mind changing some stuff to suit my table, but summoning is so complex that I would only trust your balancing methods. Hopefully soon. 🙏

Thanks for the support!
Warden and Avenger were on-the-whim ideas that materialized after consulting the 4e rules for ideas. I'm quite happy with how they came out, though am definitely open for feedback on such new ideas. I have an Alchemist/Engineer type class waiting in the winds, but a full class needs far more work than I want to dedicate at this moment.
Summoning is still in the cards via the summon eidolon spell for pact Sorcerers and via the myriad of summoning spells. Necromancy is there for the Mage and some Death Domain Acolytes. The spells will be fixed as part of https://bitbucket.org/mlenser/tablet...mmoning-spells, but you'll likely have to be patient on that one as trying to balance those spells and hitting a road block was one of the contributing factors that caused me to take a hiatus from this project a few months ago.

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

Spoiler: tyresias11 questions

Show

1. Is skalds 11 level feature made to work with cantrips? In addition to the empowered cantrips perk that gives casting modifier to cantrips? Same question for Bloodrager's 6th level feature (arcane fury)

Honest opinion time: I am not a fan of the concept of a Minstrel. I'd remove it if it were not then demanded by people. I think the class has turned out pretty well, but I personally do not encourage the class.

Yes, this perk is intended to work with cantrips. It is the equivalent of ~1d6-1d10 of damage like the Paladin and Ranger have. Though as you have noticed this is too strong when combined with empowered cantrips. I have added https://bitbucket.org/mlenser/tablet...oo-strong-when to restrict this.

1a. To continue with Bloodrager. Her 14th level feature allows her to cast a spell on herself when she enters rage without spending an action. However, in the 3rd level feature it states she cannot concentrate on spells while raging. What are some examples of this and what is the intent behind it?

I can't think of any that would be great - please open an issue on the tracker to address this.

2a. Every other gish in your system gets at 11th level some sort of passive form of dealing more damage with their attacks. Exception might be the Avenger and Ranger but it's still very easy to achieve. Warden gets a 1d8 when she fuses a spell with an attack (using her natural strike feature might be more appropriate wording wise). This seems substantially inferior to the other gish 11th lvl options, including the other gish in the naturalist class. Is this intentional?

Note that Gish 11th level features should not be restricted to when they use their mana attack system. I removed that wording from the Warden.

2b. A lot of those passive bonuses at 11lvl are per attack. As a result, dual wielding gets a larger value out of it compared to two-handed weapons. Is this also intentional?

Overall the bump is minor to TWF. See https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets...gid=2035285798 to compare more complete numbers.

3. Storm herald - 3rd level feature does damage every round (bonus action) to all nearby ENEMIES. Under the desert option where the damage is increased, it states nearby creatures. Does that include your allies? Also, what does ALL/ANY OTHER creatures in your aura, means? Like, aside from those affected by the aura's damage? That is in most options of that feature and the wording confuses me.

I've reworded this feature to be more clear. It is only damaging enemies.

3a. We experimented with a storm herald Barbarian and we felt the aura thing is very very underwhelming. The cases where she was surrounded by more than 2 enemies at the same time was exceptionally rare for her aura to pull its weight. The short range, the negligible damage at higher levels (3 damage aoe every round at level 5 is really nice. At 15 is just an annoying thing to track that does virtually nothing) result in a pretty underwhelming experience for my player so far. I am sure the math behind it is reasonable. I am just mentioning the delivery this feature had to us so far. At least I allowed her to be able change her aura theme every time she rages instead whenever she takes a level (which is basically never in our table, we start high but progress extremely slow). Now she began to use her auras creatively for its utility and control, which I assume was the original purpose anyway. Which is great because barbarians can feel like they do the same thing over and over most of the time.

I noticed the damage tapering off as well. I'd Storm Aura is not calculated very much. Please open an issue on the tracker for me to look at it deeper.

4. What do you think of a perk similar to favourite spell feat that modified a single spell. More often than not, I have players that really love to invest and make one spell their signature thing. And I love this. I wanted to offer an option for such cases, where a single spell can get a few small bonuses. I made one that adds +1 to the DC (i know u hate numerical bonuses), and adds a free old metamagic option like silent, distant or something of the minor options u had back when u used metamagic for everyone. What's some criticism against that idea? The numerical bonus part is not an issue for me or my table so skip that or feel free to suggest something similar.

I'm skeptical as this is the flavor of the Mage via "Signature Spells" for the customizing spells. For the metamagic options it's now the flavor of the Sorcerer.

I think the option could work, but I also think it could be super limiting to those who optimize extensively. They are then effectively forced to focus on only a few spells. Feel free to suggest a Perk and I can provide feedback.

5. Fighter's Parry and Shield block maneuvers are exactly the same thing. One requires a melee weapon and the other a shield. Could they be possibly fuse into one by adding some prerequisites at the end of the description? It seems redundant to me.

Parry would be used by a TWF or two handed fighter while Shield Block would be used by a more defender type fighter. I can't think of a common name without diluting the name.

6. Fighter's Remarkable Athlete feature says that u get advantage in one of the aforementioned skills as long as you don't have already double proficiency in any of them. I remember that u were going away from the double proficiency mechanic. I am probably talking out of my ass here, I just wanted some clarity.

Definitely the case. That wording is there from an earleir version that was closer aligned with RAW where people were more inclined to use expertise as RAW. I'll clean it up.

@tyresias11 your questions are great, but it's too many for tonight. I want to get out replies, but I can't answer all the ones you pose at this time so instead of giving half-assed answers please open an issue on the issue tracker with concise wording so I can address them when I have time. Sorry!

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

Spoiler: Set themes per class

Show

Acolyte

One could argue that Acolytes should only be able to cast spells from their deities domain options entirely, but that feels quite too restrictive. Ultimately themes should be a conversation between GM and player, not just picked at random imo. Lets jump in to individual options:

Undeath (This is assumptions of me but it simply fit with my vision of DnD, clerics who are really into undeath and the rest avoid it.)

Undeath is a cultural issue and only an issue for some gods. https://rpg.stackexchange.com/questi...-of-necromancy expands on this, but I believe a blanket approach for all Acolytes is the wrong approach. It doesn't even make sense for most.

Arcane (Due mostly to the old Arcane/Devine devide.)

What about gods who have the Arcane Domain? Follow up: What about gods who have multiple domains, one of which is arcane, and the Acolyte chooses a different subclass specialty, but still wants to grab Arcane? Second follow up: "Arcane" is now only 18 spells so the traditional "Arcane spells" are scattered to the wind. Are those allowed?

Astral (Powers of the ectoplasmic stuff between planes doesn't seem like something gods would grant)

There are many gods dealing with planes. It might not fit all characters, but it could definitely fit some that do not focus on an "Astral Domain"

Mind/Telekinesis (Fits knowledge great and it might just be my biases but once more it simply doesn't feel divine, probably a side effect of the names.)

I can see many Acolytes that focus on Mind: The Trickery Domain could definitely use some Mind theme spells as well as a super charismatic Acolyte who is leading some religious ceremonies.

About here I came to the realization: A restrictive theme selection is a statement of how magic works but since DnD is such a kitchen sink it very hard to find some consistent reasoning for magic to be divided among the classes over multiple worlds. It all becomes some version of "This feels right". If I say that I don't want minstrels to cast elemental magic there really isn't any proper reasoning I can give. I have a specific way I imagine a fantasy world but I don't think my world is the right one to follow, after all, it would probably not include the minstrel. So in summary, restrictions are in my view a way to create a certain fantasy, they will only work if our fantasies are the same. Maybe they would work best as a variant rule left up to the DM. Good of you Kryx for pressing the issue and forcing me to think critically.

I think GMs and players should work together to pick themes that match the character, but as you say the options could vary greatly based on campaign. Not only campaign, but also specific characters. I think it is impossible to predict all the options - there could always be a reason I think.

My first instinct is for some intellect/emotion divide or outer/inner, maybe magic of focus/disruption or some other duality. In the interest of not putting all damage in one and buffs in the other Intellect(discipline, confusion, force)/Emotion(distraction, fear, heroism). Emotion steps on the toes of charm but I belive that is better than the current mind/telepathy.

I've created https://bitbucket.org/mlenser/tablet...mind-telepathy to examine this issue after some further consideration.

Realm? (The Realm of the mind, the realm of fire, the realm of the divine, the realm of beasts)

After more thought "Theme" really feels like the right word. A "Fire themed monk" for example makes total sense whereas a "Monk with the Fire sphere" makes much less sense.

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

"The goal is for it to be limiting! 230 spells on a spell list is something my system is purposefully trying to avoid. ~120 has been the expectation since the beginning of this project and something around that area will remain the goal. Spell lists will not be part of this project. Possibly some class restrictions as mentioned above to Descole, but not spell lists. Take it or leave it."
Ah ok, limiting is the design goal.

The only class that is impacted by this in a negative way is the Mage which has some features to expand its list to cherry pick spells. Every other class either has significantly more options of similar options for total spells to choose from. Full list:

A Bard has 113 spells on their list
A Cleric has 99 spells on their list
A Druid has 126 spells on their list
A Paladin has 45 spells on their list
A Ranger has 49 spells on their list
A Sorcerer has 137 spells on their list
A Warlock has 71 spells on their list
A Wizard has 230 spells on their list

Sorc is all blood :)

I greatly appreciate feedback, but please stop passing off personal opinion or misunderstanding of D&D 5e's flavor or mechanics as fact. Especially when it has very recently been addressed in this thread:

The Sorcerer angle is super easy to defend with words like "otherworldly influence" and "a result of a pact" in their RAW descriptions. By RAW a Sorcerer has 3 options of origin, a pact being one of them.

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

I love the cavalier fighter subclass. I love the tank theme and it will allow to fulfill certain fantasies. Can anyone suggest me an alternative to the 3rd lvl feature Born to the Saddle? I would like this to be an optional feature side by side with a non mount option to allow both Archetypes and not to be pigeonholed into a mount rider.

The cavalier already has 3 3rd level features. Ignoring the mount won't impact it much. Alternatively grab both options from "Bonus Proficiencies"

Also, this is a bold question but... Is anyone aware of a skills system that departs from the specific ability modifiers?
I honestly could never stand that my Druid who dedicate her entire life to the intersection of arcane and divine, will always be inferior to any arcane lore related skills because it's based on intelligence.

And in general I am really not a fan of this limitation. It promotes boring, archaic and narrow minded limitations to characters. Why my rogue who was raised in the wilds is inferior in nature Lore or survival checks? Why does she need to sacrifice elsewhere to increase a stat that she might not be interested at all.

Has anyone seen any system somewhere that allows characters to be equals based on their story and not their class limitation?

I also can understand people attachment to tradition and why they prefer it otherwise but I am really interested to a solution rather than an argument. I honestly never heard a counterargument remotely relevant anyway 🙅

There is the houserules to use different ability modifiers as makes sense, but this is beyond that imo. This is really a complaint about ability scores being attached to skills in general. I don't disagree and even pushed to remove ability scores entirely from D&D. Proficiency Bonus would be close enough in most cases. So each skill scales with PB and some get double PB if you're proficienct, no ability scores.

[Descole]

Ok, my attempt to revise the Nature theme:

Expanding beast to more animals.
Introducing a new theme, Spirit dealing with souls and fey.

Druidcraft - No good fit, rework
Shillelagh - Plant
Detect poison and disease - both plant and beast
Insect Plague - beast
Moonbeam - light
Regrowth life
Snare - honestly I see little value in this spell
Spirit Guardians - Spirit
Conjure Woodland Being - Spirit
Find Steed (Fey) - Spirit
Primordial Ward - Protection
Protection from Poison - protection
Web - beast
Giant Insect - Beast/alteration
Wrath of Nature - Plant
Guardian of Nature - Spirit
Commune with Nature - Spirit/plant
Druid Grove - Spirit/plant or split
Reincarnate - Life/Spirit (one could move most resurrection to spirit)
Control Weather - Air


Add spells like Soul Cage, Faithful Hound and Find Familiar to spirit to fill it out more, probably some healing to.

When I have time I will attempt an Intelect/Emotion split of the Mind theme.

[Ugganaut]

I greatly appreciate feedback, but please stop passing off personal opinion or misunderstanding of D&D 5e's flavor or mechanics as fact.

Copy that, I'll do my best.

[Kryx]

Things have slowed down so I have time to reply:

Spoiler: tyresias11 questions 7+

Show

7. While I think that berserker subclass is one of the better designed subclasses, the zealot is probably my least favourite. And the reason is it's situational -sometimes never coming up in the entire campaign- features (warrior of the gods and 14th lvl feature). This is a personal pet peeve. But this subclass gets value when you know you will be in a grittier dangerous campaign, or when resurrection is a freely available spell (which for a lot of settings, it is not). The subclass seems to shine under narrow and certain conditions, and even then it's more of a AHA!! moment that you may use again in a few months. Maybe. The fantasy behind it is excellent. The situational mechanics that are further relevant or not, dependent on individual settings/DM is something I cannot imagine anyone enjoying. Contrary to every other Barbarian subclass that gets features that adds so much to the way they play. And they do this often. The zealot, not so much. (i am again highlighting that barbarians are the one class that can often feel like you have very very limited options and choices, and zealot adds salt to that wound).

Warrior of the Gods is situational, but that's why the Zealot has two 3rd level features. Divine Fury is good enough to be a 3rd level feature, Warrior of the Gods is there for possible flavor. There is no mechanical deficiency here.

I don't think Rage Beyond Death is nearly as situational as you claim. It allows the Barbarian to act far more recklessly than they normally would (assuming they have a healer). That said it isn't my favorite feature either and I wouldn't mind replacing it with a better option.

Detect portal by Horizon Walker is similar. Am I fine with situational features? Yes sure. But why would I do that when I can give it something that is more more fun and used in more situations while maintain the flavor of the Archetype?
Not a fan of dead features that would be used once or twice and then never again. I would add the detect portal as an addition to another feature.

Detect Portal and Plane Walker are both 3rd level features for the Horizon Walker. I agree it's more situational and wouldn't mind buffing Plane Walker a bit if you have ideas.

8) How do you determine success or failure in Acolyte's divine intervention future? Do you roll something? Or does it mean that it's up to your DM to decide whether your God helps you or not (i am always against such methods. Good DM = incredible feature, Bad DM = underwhelming feature). I want my Players to have more agency over their characters since they are the ones who have that personal bond with their God/deity/divine source/whatever.

It's entirely up to the GM and the situation. By RAW the feature has a 10% chance of success which is garbage. This is intended to allow the GM to scale that based on the scenario. There isn't a way to make that more concrete.

9) Acolyte protection domain 6th lvl feature named divine allegiance. At 6 lvl its 10 feet and then it becomes 30 feet at 18 lvl. This is again a feast or famine like thing. Very very rarely a game will go up to 18 lvl. 10 feet sounds about right at the Start but it could be pumped to 20 feet at 11 like other similar features. I changed it in my table to do exactly that.

All Acolyte Auras are 10 feet and increase to 30 feet at 18. This matches RAW Paladin Auras. I agree that it can be bumped at mid levels - though I'll make it level 10 as that is when subclass features hit for all caster classes. I've done the same for the perk Aura of Courage and Aura of Protection.

10) Acolytes light domain, 14 and 18 lvl features are both a long rest aura spells that last a minute. Do they stack?
Is it intentional that a paladin acolyte will get way more value from this domain compared to a ranged priest? I am Okey with certain subclasses to be more successful with specific domains. On the other hand, such a shame that a cool, light domain full caster priest (a very common Archetype) gets a substantially lesser value from this domain compared to a melee tankier paladin or even Avenger. This is honestly very minor as the same case can be applied to many other subclasses. Probably just me being overly obsessed with having mechanics follow rather than dictate character concepts.

There is no wording that prevents them from stacking, so yes they stack. But using 2 actions in a row in combat only doing these seems like a bad choice.
Agreed that this subclass should be more open to ranged characters. Perhaps there are two options at these levels? Or perhaps you have good ideas for replacements? I'm open to suggestions

A) Monk of the sudden storm first feature is the same as the fire one. It has the same name and all.
B) Monk of tranquility says u can cast spells from the life or protection domain. You choose one and stay with it I guess?
C) Naturalist's circle of the shepherd 3rd lvl feature named speech of the woods overlaps with the base naturalist 2nd level feature: beast speech.

A. Fixed.
B. Nope, it's either
C. Modified it to remove the duplication. It's just Sylvan basically.

Ok, my attempt to revise the Nature theme:

Thanks for taking this on!
I don't think a Spirit theme works. There aren't enough spells to fill it out.

Nature theme removed.

• Control Weather moved to Air
• Insect Plague, Find Steed (Beast), Giant Insect, and Web moved to Beast
• Commune with Nature moved to Divination
• Spirit Guardians moved to Divine since that is its original flavor
• Moonbeam moved to Light
• Druidcraft reworked to Plant Invigoration, Shillelagh, Wrath of Nature, and Regrowth moved to plants. Regrowth being plants is in the name and the goal is to give a theme other than Life a healing spell. Plants is perfect for a Naturalist as well.
• Detect Poison and Disease moved to Poison. Neither plant nor beast seems fitting. Poison already had Protection from Poison
• Reincarnate moved to Undeath (where all the "soul" spells live)
• Druid Grove moved to Unthemed
• Snare removed - why not just use a normal rope...?
• Conjure Woodland Being removed - Summon beast exists and there isn't a huge loss for the fey part
• Guardian of Nature removed. Polymorph covers the Beast part and Oak Body covers the tree.
• Primordial Ward already exists in Protection via Protection from Energy

[Tahliat]

Firstly, allow me to praise you for your amazing work! I haven't had the time to fully read throught it all but it is consistent and nicely put together.
Allas I can't use your rules to provide gaming feedback as I can only play with Fantasy Grounds atm, because my gaming group is scattered across Europe...

Some suggestions:
Maybe fold the Prismatic Spells into Light? I know they do various types of damage instead of radiant but it is randomized so it *could* fit thematically. Also there allready is the Color Spray spell in the light Theme. Consider renaming chaos bolt to prismatic ray and changing its damage to random (1d6: 1 Red, 2 Orange, 3 Yellow, 4 Green, 5 Blue, 6 reroll) or add it as spell.

Gravitational Well and Reverse Gravity fit the telekinesis theme don't you think?

Arcane could use a damaging cantrip, Sword Burst's Fluff is about conjuring phantom blades, tying in nicely with Faithful Hound. I would change the damage to piersing or slashing though to make it a bit weaker (Arcane is't about damage after all) and avoid stepping on the toes of the Force theme.

Lastly I think that you're correct in giving every caster access to every theme, as you correctly pointed out the crossover between divine and arcane magic in 5e as well as in previous editions. My comment to that is that casters should start thematically flavored (Mage= arcane or force, Acolyte= Divine etc) as you allready have done and only have one theme available for customization at level 1. You then have a locked core identity for the class but enough wiggle room for customization. Maybe have them choose the second theme from a list and only have a free choise for the 3rd? So you can avoid having a mage with more divine spells than arcane ones and vice versa for an acolyte, at least for the start of their careers.

[Kryx]

Firstly, allow me to praise you for your amazing work! I haven't had the time to fully read throught it all but it is consistent and nicely put together.

Thanks for the praise and thanks for the feedback!

Allas I can't use your rules to provide gaming feedback as I can only play with Fantasy Grounds atm, because my gaming group is scattered across Europe...

I have a popular sheet on Roll20 that supports my rules (not that I'm pushing them, it may be an option though)

Maybe fold the Prismatic Spells into Light? I know they do various types of damage instead of radiant but it is randomized so it *could* fit thematically. Also there allready is the Color Spray spell in the light Theme. Consider renaming chaos bolt to prismatic ray and changing its damage to random (1d6: 1 Red, 2 Orange, 3 Yellow, 4 Green, 5 Blue, 6 reroll) or add it as spell.

I'd rather have a Chaos theme that I expand upon. I have 4 spells for it, but 4 is too few. I'd love some help with new spells all across my themes!

Gravitational Well and Reverse Gravity fit the telekinesis theme don't you think?

Interesting idea. Reading up on Wikipedia could definitely make that connection. I've been in the space theme lately with The Expanse books and there gravity feels more like a "Void" or "Gravity" type theme, but that would need a lot of fleshing out. Perhaps Telekinesis is pretty close if not accurate:

Physicist Sean M. Carroll has written that spoons, like all matter, are made up of atoms and that any movement of a spoon with the mind would involve the manipulation of those atoms through the four forces of nature: the strong nuclear force, the weak nuclear force, electromagnetism, and gravitation. Psychokinesis would have to be either some form of one of these four forces, or a new force that has a billionth the strength of gravity, for otherwise it would have been captured in experiments already done. This leaves no physical force that could possibly account for psychokinesis.

Arcane could use a damaging cantrip, Sword Burst's Fluff is about conjuring phantom blades, tying in nicely with Faithful Hound. I would change the damage to piersing or slashing though to make it a bit weaker (Arcane is't about damage after all) and avoid stepping on the toes of the Force theme.

I wonder if "Arcane" is a bad theme like Nature was. It has a strong theme of anti-magic along with a collection of spells that used to be on the Wizard spell list. It feels like it should be removed actually.

My comment to that is that casters should start thematically flavored (Mage= arcane or force, Acolyte= Divine etc) as you allready have done and only have one theme available for customization at level 1. You then have a locked core identity for the class but enough wiggle room for customization. Maybe have them choose the second theme from a list and only have a free choise for the 3rd? So you can avoid having a mage with more divine spells than arcane ones and vice versa for an acolyte, at least for the start of their careers.

What you suggest is exactly the current scenario. Classes get 1 theme, subclasses get 1 theme, and 1 theme can be selected at will. I think creating a list for only the first customizable theme seems like the wrong solution - it'd be a lot of effort for only one tier and really just delay the "problem" (which isn't a problem imo).

[Kryx]

Thanks so much Marcloure for creating theme descriptions! They are absolutely fantastic!
I've created 3 new themes below and would love your touch on their descriptions, though perhaps allow some time for them to solidify a bit more.

I decided that a Spirit theme was actually the right choice:

• Faithful Hound and Find Familiar moved from Arcane
• Resurrection moved from Life
• Magic Jar, Reincarnate, and Soul Cage moved from Undeath
• Druid Grove moved from unthemed and renamed Grove
• Summon Eidolon moved from unthemed
• Spirit Guardians, Wrath of Nature, and Contact Spirits added
• Circle of the Spirits knows the Spirit theme

The Spirit theme currently has 11 spells

Split the Arcane Theme:

• Alarm to Protection
• Detect Magic, Counterspell, Dispel Magic, Reave Barrier, Spell Shield, Catapsi, Reddopsi, and Antimagic Field to Antimagic theme
• Prestidigitation, Detect Magic, and Magic Circle moved to Force
• Co-opt Concentration to Mind
• Knock/Lock, Create Homunculus, and Affinity Field moved to unthemed. If anyone has ideas where these should live let me know.
• Grease removed as we have Ectoplasmic Sheen in the Astral theme
• Arcane theme options on classes are generally replaced with Antimagic. Most provide 2 out of 3: Antimagic, Force, or Protection.

The Antimagic theme currently has 8 spells

Other Changes:

• Renames of some spells: Find Steed (Beast) -> Call Steed and is reworded a bit, Spirit Guardians -> Spiritual Guardians, Find Steed -> Divine Steed
• Plant Invigoration removed from Plant
• Moved Gravitational Well and Reverse Gravity from unthemed to Telekinesis
• Astral Projection added to the Astral theme
• Mind Thrust changed to give advantage on the next attack
• Chaos theme created with: Chaos Orb, Chaos Bolt, Entropic Shield, Chaotic Weapon, Confusion, Chaos Storm, Prismatic Spray, and Prismatic Wall.
• Wild Mage has the Chaos theme.

The Chaos theme currently has 6 spells

[Descole]

Some more words on spells and themes:

Mending, Make Whole, Memory of Function - Could fit rather well in the alteration theme
Knock/Lock - Protection maybe

Antimagic could use a See invisibility type spell

Some spell proposal, I have made only the most rudimentary attempts to balance these and they are mostly ideas.

Scatter (chaos)
2-3 mana - Action - 120 range - Each creature in a 15 feet diameter sphere is teleported 2d10x10 feet in a random cardinal direction (roll 1d8, 1 is north, 2 northwest and so on).
Use as escape tool or to divide a group of enemies.

Unstable form (chaos)
4-6 mana - Bonus Action - self - 1-minute duration - You transform into a random monster (maybe limit to a certain type) with Cr X (maybe base on mana spent) gaining all its statistics and actions. At the start of your next turn you transform into a new monster. You may end this spell as a bonus action, if you do you revert to your original form.
A nice chunk of Hp and some fun new attacks, set Cr makes it less hit or miss.

Replace Target (chaos)
1-2 mana - Reaction - 60 range - As a reaction to a single creature becoming the target of a spell, attack or ability you may force the caster/attacker/user to succeed on a will saving throw or change the target of the spell, attack or ability to another random target within range excluding itself, if there are no other possible targets this spell fails.
A nice defensive tool fitting in the random paradigm

My attempt to split Mind and telepathy into Intellect and Emotion:
Intellect: Overpower, outwith, cold, disciplined, controlling
Emotion: Stress, understand, calm, disrupting

Message - Intellect
Sense minds - Emotion
Alienation - Intellect
Detect Thoughts - Intellect
Sending - Intellect (A feeling/picture based one can be made for Emotion)
Telepathic Bond - Intellect
Distract - Emotion
Mind Thrust - Intellect
Agonizing Rebuke - Emotion
Call to Mind - Intellect
Disable - Emotion but could go either way
Dissonant Whispers - Emotion
Ego Whip - Emotion
Meld Mindcrystal - Intellect
Mind Spike - Intellect
Mind Trap - Intellect
Brain Lock - Intellect
Confusion - Emotion
Enemies Abound - Emotion
Mind Blast - Intellect
Psychic Crush - Intellect
Thought Shield - Intellect
Modify Memory - Intellect
Personality Parasite - Can’t decide
Synaptic Static - Emotion
Co-opt Concentration - Intellect
Mind Switch - Can’t Decide
Schism - Can’t Decide
Mind Blank - Intellect
Power word Stun - Emotion
Psychic Reformation - Intellect
Solicit Mindcrystal - Intellect
Symbol of Insanity - Emotion
Feeblemind - Intellect
Mind Seed - Intellect