Tome of Lost Lore - PEACH, GMGuild Project

[Joxeta]

Hello everyone!

I am currently working on a "book" for the DMGuild entitled "Tome of Lost Lore."
In this (which will probably end up being a book with sequels), I have updated things that existed in previous editions to the 5e paradigm.

I have four "things" that I will be putting into this book, and I would like some critiquing, testplaying (if possible), and general input.
I've previously put these up at the Paizo boards and gotten some decent feedback there.
However, I know how dedicated this community is to this kind of stuff.

Without further ado:
The Factotum (https://docs.google.com/document/d/1fVlxhN41t_CBGEw6_Wug4wWCp4MeIfXzFpcQ5EawASU/edit) - "generic" adventuring class with a surprising amount of versatility; originally from 3rd edition book "Dungeonscape." Given a full-class write up for this project.
The Binder, Shadowcaster, and Truenamer (https://docs.google.com/document/d/173WWGj4xMSw-0aFJ2PitRGUbyo2BX4HIiB-stWFNzLw/edit) - classes that use magic that isn't arcane or divine; originally from the 3rd edition book "Tome of Magic" and presented here as archetypes for the warlock, sorcerer, and wizard
The Sha'ir (https://docs.google.com/document/d/1f2szJ8Ke2Xu7q2tlFwIRVdJX99MDpZsPxM2O7rwwv-k/edit) - a spellcaster that serves a genie lord; originally from 2nd edition book "Al-Qadim: Arabian Adventures," published again in 3rd edition in Dragon issue 315, and in 4th edition in "Heroes of the Elemental Chaos." Presented here as a warlock archetype.
Spellfire Adept (https://docs.google.com/document/d/1Ni_xNYVh4dCa-er2XZbWUvmyyoef3jjKyCGJllRw4cU/edit) - the rare wielders of spellfire can absorb and redirect magical energies; can't quite pinpoint this one's publication history. As far as I can tell, it first appeared in the novel "Spellfire," had some rules in 2nd edition, and it's last appearance was as a feat in 3rd edition. It is under a major reworking from my original ideas currently, and is now accessible as a feat and as a sorcerous origin. The rough idea for the current iteration is the portion not struck-through.

Like I said previously, any reading over, playing with, or other reviewing of these rules would be appreciated. My goal is to get some artwork together and have everything ready for "publication" by July.

Thanks in advance and keep on rocking in the free world!

[zeek0]

Hey! I really like what you are doing, and you have rather good writing.

Here's my thoughts as I read through. It's not in-depth, just a surface read:

Factotum
Spell Slots: This is basically warlock casting - regain slots on a short rest and no spell slots/level. But a 12th level Factotum can cast 7 spells at 5th-level strength, while a 12th level Warlock can only cast 3. This is probably too much, even considering that other features spend talent points.

Second/Third Knack: I get it - the purpose of a Factotum is to be flexible. But what distinguishes one Factotum from another? The purpose of subclasses seems, to me, to be so that players can express their character in different ways. This essentially makes all Factotums the same.

Vestiges Patron
Pact Augmentation: Gaining resistance to non-magical bludgeoning, piercing, and slashing damage is comparable only to the rage feature (which has a limited number of uses/day), and the War Cleric capstone.

I shan't read through all the choices at this time.

Truenamer
Learning a Personal Truename: Define a truename. Is it my First, Middle, and Last names? Is it only my first? Titles? What if my culture only provides one name, or provides twenty? Or is it totally different, some objective name different from socially given names?

Genie Pact
Bartered Spells: I know that you essentially get way less spells than others. But since you can choose every long rest what spell you'd like to cherry pick from another class, you make the class super-variable. Some spells are particular to a class. Bards can violate this with Magical Secrets - but they only ever violate one spell after they choose it. This allows you to violate any spell you want any time you need it. Perhaps this is more of a design philosophy note than a balance one.

[Joxeta]

Hey! I really like what you are doing, and you have rather good writing.

Thanks :smallbiggrin:
And double thanks for being the first real feedback here!



Factotum
Spell Slots: This is basically warlock casting - regain slots on a short rest and no spell slots/level. But a 12th level Factotum can cast 7 spells at 5th-level strength, while a 12th level Warlock can only cast 3. This is probably too much, even considering that other features spend talent points.

Second/Third Knack: I get it - the purpose of a Factotum is to be flexible. But what distinguishes one Factotum from another? The purpose of subclasses seems, to me, to be so that players can express their character in different ways. This essentially makes all Factotums the same.

Spell Slots: I did use the warlock's casting as a basic chassis for the factotum. My hope was that there would be enough cool things that required a talent point that factotums would not be spell-slinging maniacs. Would it help if I scaled back the progression of talent points, or should I make it so that they have a number of slots equal to their Intelligence modifier? To me, those would seem like viable fixes if this current work-out has too much flexibility.

Second/Third Knack: As written, each factotum will only be able to truly specialize in one knack and dabbles in two more. I was contemplating adding some feature to the class that worked kind of like invocations (choose one from list at certain levels), but I wasn't sure if that would unbalance what I had here.

In terms of design, I was trying to keep as much of the 3.X factotum alive here as possible.



Vestiges Patron
Pact Augmentation: Gaining resistance to non-magical bludgeoning, piercing, and slashing damage is comparable only to the rage feature (which has a limited number of uses/day), and the War Cleric capstone.

I shan't read through all the choices at this time.

Okay. That one is kind of beefy, but the original feature in 3.X did that. Would breaking it into three different damage types be better?



Truenamer
Learning a Personal Truename: Define a truename. Is it my First, Middle, and Last names? Is it only my first? Titles? What if my culture only provides one name, or provides twenty? Or is it totally different, some objective name different from socially given names?

This is a fluff thing that I guess I hadn't written out yet.
Truenames are the multiverse's "serial number" for an entity or object. It changes when that entity or object changes in some significant way.
So, it doesn't matter if your character has thirty names, a title, or is an amnesiac who has completely forgotten their own name and only goes by "Guy." The multiverse knows the truth :smallwink:



Genie Pact
Bartered Spells: I know that you essentially get way less spells than others. But since you can choose every long rest what spell you'd like to cherry pick from another class, you make the class super-variable. Some spells are particular to a class. Bards can violate this with Magical Secrets - but they only ever violate one spell after they choose it. This allows you to violate any spell you want any time you need it. Perhaps this is more of a design philosophy note than a balance one.

Like most other things in this line-up, this is how the original iteration worked.
This was a major sticking point for others as well, though.
In my original drafting of this archetype, the character could select total spell levels equal to their warlock level. After some strenuous bargaining, it was figured that giving them total spell levels up to their spell slot level (which means they can get more spells as they level [added bonus I just realized: this helps reflect in-story that your patron trusts you with more power]) and guaranteeing some spells in a hasty trade was a fair deal.
If you have suggestions on what can be done to streamline this concept further, please share :smallbiggrin:

And thanks again for giving me some feedback!

[zeek0]

Spell Slots: I did use the warlock's casting as a basic chassis for the factotum. My hope was that there would be enough cool things that required a talent point that factotums would not be spell-slinging maniacs. Would it help if I scaled back the progression of talent points, or should I make it so that they have a number of slots equal to their Intelligence modifier? To me, those would seem like viable fixes if this current work-out has too much flexibility.

I think that the progression of talent points is probably the problem. Since they refresh after a short rest, it seems reasonable that you could even use the warlock progression of spell slots or something similar.

The problem becomes, of course, that you have a single resource that you use for all of your abilities. A paladin has different resource systems for spellcasting, channel divinity, and 1/day features. This means that he can't spend all his resources one one part of his class, and forces him to diversify his actions. Even the monk performs features that don't cost ki points.

If we drastically reduce the talent points/short rest, we need to compensate the class. So our baseline power/point comparison is casting a spell of appropriate level. Perhaps the best solution is to reduce the cost of abilities or increase their power. Moment of inspiration can start with 1d6. Cunning Surge can cost 2 points. Nine Lives should allow automatic stabilization, and cost 1 point.


Second/Third Knack: As written, each factotum will only be able to truly specialize in one knack and dabbles in two more. I was contemplating adding some feature to the class that worked kind of like invocations (choose one from list at certain levels), but I wasn't sure if that would unbalance what I had here.

I'm going to strongly disagree with you here, and while I don't know if I can convince you to change it up after you have so much sunk cost, I want to try.

A subclass is more than additional options for a character. It is an expression of focus, a way of becoming archetypal. The difference between subclasses within a class is not huge mechanically, but is huge conceptually and in regards to character. It defines.

At the moment, the base class draws from many different classes, making it a rather great generalist. You can cast spells, fight in melee, and fight at range. You can play many different roles.

So the question becomes: how does the factotum distinguish themselves?

This does not need to be in a arcanist/martialist/espionage divide. It can be about the job you have, different sources of your power, different ideals that you hold to, where you were trained, etc.



Erm... I'm sorry that I wrote so much. I'd like to have more of a conversation - let me know what you think. I really do like all the work you've put in on this, so don't take my comments as negative. Cheers.

[Joxeta]

I think that the progression of talent points is probably the problem. Since they refresh after a short rest, it seems reasonable that you could even use the warlock progression of spell slots or something similar.

The problem becomes, of course, that you have a single resource that you use for all of your abilities. A paladin has different resource systems for spellcasting, channel divinity, and 1/day features. This means that he can't spend all his resources one one part of his class, and forces him to diversify his actions. Even the monk performs features that don't cost ki points.

If we drastically reduce the talent points/short rest, we need to compensate the class. So our baseline power/point comparison is casting a spell of appropriate level. Perhaps the best solution is to reduce the cost of abilities or increase their power. Moment of inspiration can start with 1d6. Cunning Surge can cost 2 points. Nine Lives should allow automatic stabilization, and cost 1 point.
I actually really like those suggestions.

The problem is that a vast majority of their features are keyed-of of their talent points.
I will work on giving them a handful of nice things.
I will probably just give them warlock casting, due to a further idea (presented after the next quote).



I'm going to strongly disagree with you here, and while I don't know if I can convince you to change it up after you have so much sunk cost, I want to try.

A subclass is more than additional options for a character. It is an expression of focus, a way of becoming archetypal. The difference between subclasses within a class is not huge mechanically, but is huge conceptually and in regards to character. It defines.

At the moment, the base class draws from many different classes, making it a rather great generalist. You can cast spells, fight in melee, and fight at range. You can play many different roles.

So the question becomes: how does the factotum distinguish themselves?

This does not need to be in a arcanist/martialist/espionage divide. It can be about the job you have, different sources of your power, different ideals that you hold to, where you were trained, etc.
It's okay to disagree on things :smallsmile: Just so long as we don't end up fighting :smalltongue:
And I understand how subclass/archetypes are meant to work in this system.
This actually did inspire me to push for a massive rewrite for the class.

How about this:

Keep the current copy-cat features as a feature that works like a warlock's invocations (choose at certain levels, blah blah blah)
Give the class a set of GENUINE archetypes - the Investigator, the Daredevil, and the Magician



This would require some major reworking, but I'm way okay with that.



Erm... I'm sorry that I wrote so much. I'd like to have more of a conversation - let me know what you think. I really do like all the work you've put in on this, so don't take my comments as negative. Cheers.
Even negative criticism is appreciated, as long as it is honest and constructive :smallbiggrin:
Keep the ideas rolling!

[zeek0]

How about this:

Keep the current copy-cat features as a feature that works like a warlock's invocations (choose at certain levels, blah blah blah)
Give the class a set of GENUINE archetypes - the Investigator, the Daredevil, and the Magician



Ah, I think that I like this. I'm a great fan of making character options modular so that the player can customize. You've moved the modular bits into the base class instead of the subclasses, which I think is a quality idea.

I'm going to list a bunch of off-the-cuff ideas - use them as you will:


In keeping with the generalist theme of a Factotum, perhaps you can give some basic parts of each concept to the base class. Perhaps Warlock casting / Fighting Styles+Extra Attack / Expertise + Larger Skill List/3 Skills is a good baseline. Then the player can decide what 'invocations' they want to choose to expand their ideas.
Mystic Arcanum (lvl 6+ warlock casting) can be part of your Magician subclass. (but see next comment...)
Is this class a 1/2 caster? I could think of reasons that it should be - as a generalist it may not make sense to delve into greater knowledge, even if you are the magician subclass.
Investigator and Magician (and possibly Daredevil) could gain an expanded spell list, or spells that they always have prepared. I like putting these together - let me know if it's an idea you're interested in.
I looked up the old Factotum class, and I think a lot of their abilities can be keyed into the 'invocations'.
An 'invocation' that changes talent points into spell slots when needed.




And I understand how subclass/archetypes are meant to work in this system.
Of course. I didn't intend to be didactic, just explain my philosophy - but I can see that I was didactic. I'm sorry.


This would require some major reworking, but I'm way okay with that.
That's an admirable thing to do/say - I have a lot of trouble letting go of work after I put time in.

Cheers.

[Joxeta]

*snip*
I'm going to list a bunch of off-the-cuff ideas - use them as you will:


In keeping with the generalist theme of a Factotum, perhaps you can give some basic parts of each concept to the base class. Perhaps Warlock casting / Fighting Styles+Extra Attack / Expertise + Larger Skill List/3 Skills is a good baseline. Then the player can decide what 'invocations' they want to choose to expand their ideas.
Mystic Arcanum (lvl 6+ warlock casting) can be part of your Magician subclass. (but see next comment...)
Is this class a 1/2 caster? I could think of reasons that it should be - as a generalist it may not make sense to delve into greater knowledge, even if you are the magician subclass.
Investigator and Magician (and possibly Daredevil) could gain an expanded spell list, or spells that they always have prepared. I like putting these together - let me know if it's an idea you're interested in.
I looked up the old Factotum class, and I think a lot of their abilities can be keyed into the 'invocations'.
An 'invocation' that changes talent points into spell slots when needed.


Point the first: Overall, not a bad idea. The reason they only got 2 skills in my first writing is because I didn't want them to overshadow the Bard in that regard. Otherwise, I will roll something like this in.
Point the second and third: As the original Factotum had 7th level spells, I want to keep it at 5th level maximum. No Mystic Arcanum feature. However, I was thinking that the Magician could have "breadth" of experience, as that is what the Factotum is really about. Gaining more spells known, some features related to magical things, etc.
Point the fourth: I LOVE THAT IDEA. Totally going to use it.
Point the fifth and sixth: I will work on things. I think I'll include the "invocation for spell slots" as a standard feature of the Magician.

Awesome ideas, btw!



Of course. I didn't intend to be didactic, just explain my philosophy - but I can see that I was didactic. I'm sorry.

That's an admirable thing to do/say - I have a lot of trouble letting go of work after I put time in.

Cheers.

I wasn't upset about our exchange there. This is a fine example of how tone can't be conveyed in text :/
I don't mind reworking things that I intend to publish at all. Every little bit helps :smallbiggrin:


On another note:
Has anyone read through the Tome of Magic conversions much?

[Submortimer]

The Binder, Shadowcaster, and Truenamer (https://docs.google.com/document/d/173WWGj4xMSw-0aFJ2PitRGUbyo2BX4HIiB-stWFNzLw/edit) - classes that use magic that isn't arcane or divine; originally from the 3rd edition book "Tome of Magic" and presented here as archetypes for the warlock, sorcerer, and wizard

Coming from one of the guys who helped build the big Binder conversion here on the boards, and having my OWN Vestige Warlock...yours is FAR to strong. The sheer number of options is reason enough to take this patron and never even look at others.

If you really, REALLY want this to work, this is how you need to do it:
- You can only ever bind one Vestige at a time
- Each vestige grants you a power at level 1, level 6, level 10, and level 14
- You Subclass powers do not give you actual benefits other than ones that directly affect your vestiges.

In my old vestige subclass, i had it give up spellcasting while bound, which seemed to balance it out a hair, but what you have here is way beyond what it should be.

[Joxeta]

Coming from one of the guys who helped build the big Binder conversion here on the boards, and having my OWN Vestige Warlock...yours is FAR to strong. The sheer number of options is reason enough to take this patron and never even look at others.

If you really, REALLY want this to work, this is how you need to do it:
- You can only ever bind one Vestige at a time
- Each vestige grants you a power at level 1, level 6, level 10, and level 14
- You Subclass powers do not give you actual benefits other than ones that directly affect your vestiges.

In my old vestige subclass, i had it give up spellcasting while bound, which seemed to balance it out a hair, but what you have here is way beyond what it should be.

Thanks for the feedback!
I have read through your vestige pact, and will take some pointers from what you have here and what you have there:

I'm glad that we both agree that vestige pact warlocks don't need expanded spell lists per se :smallsmile:
Comparing my vestiges to yours:

Your vestiges bring back the binding check, where mine always have influence and signs. This is really more flavor than anything, though.
Each of your vestiges offers more options than my own. Mine grant 3 abilities, and yours grant a total of 5 each.
My vestige pact warlock maintains spellcasting while bound to vestiges, and yours loses it. Seems like a fair trade off to me, as yours have more options when bound.
In terms of options in general, I personally think that each of our methods ends up with about the same level of power. Each of my vestiges grants 1, maybe 2, abilities that use an action that typically don't scale but also maintains casting, while yours offer scaling benefits at the expense of spellcasting.
Another point I feel is significant in terms of options during the day: My warlocks only bind after long rests, and yours can change after short rests.

I can definitely see the benefit in reducing the number of bound vestiges. I will make mine 1 at 1st and 2 at 10th.

I'm not trying to snark or shoot you down in any capacity.
I love the design of what you did for your binder :smallbiggrin:

I think that we're just approaching the same thing from different angles.

[Joxeta]

Sha'ir and Tome of Magic set have been updated with suggestions from here and elsewhere.

Will begin work on Factotum and Spellfire rewrites later. :smalltongue:

Keep the feedback coming in, folks! :smallbiggrin:

[Joxeta]

Spellfire updated.

That just leaves a rework of the Factotum for this weekend (maybe... hopefully...)

[Submortimer]

Thanks for the feedback!
I have read through your vestige pact, and will take some pointers from what you have here and what you have there:

I'm glad that we both agree that vestige pact warlocks don't need expanded spell lists per se :smallsmile:
Comparing my vestiges to yours:

Your vestiges bring back the binding check, where mine always have influence and signs. This is really more flavor than anything, though.
Each of your vestiges offers more options than my own. Mine grant 3 abilities, and yours grant a total of 5 each.
My vestige pact warlock maintains spellcasting while bound to vestiges, and yours loses it. Seems like a fair trade off to me, as yours have more options when bound.
In terms of options in general, I personally think that each of our methods ends up with about the same level of power. Each of my vestiges grants 1, maybe 2, abilities that use an action that typically don't scale but also maintains casting, while yours offer scaling benefits at the expense of spellcasting.
Another point I feel is significant in terms of options during the day: My warlocks only bind after long rests, and yours can change after short rests.


I can definitely see the benefit in reducing the number of bound vestiges. I will make mine 1 at 1st and 2 at 10th.

I'm not trying to snark or shoot you down in any capacity.
I love the design of what you did for your binder :smallbiggrin:

I think that we're just approaching the same thing from different angles.

I don't disagree, but you're missing a bit of the bigger picture: MY binder warlock was much too strong, even after giving up spellcasting. Don't compare your binder to mine, compare it to the PHB warlocks.

The Basic Abilities you grant (ESPECIALLY pact augmentation) are powerful enough on their own, adding up to three vestiges on top of that is overkill in the extreme, especially when you can still cast as per a normal warlock. There's just too much going on: That's really why I dropped the Binder warlock in favor of working on the Binder class.

Still, keep at it. I'm sure you can come up with a way to make it work.

[Joxeta]

A big problem that dawned on me last night with getting rid of warlock casting while bound to vestiges (yours and mine) is that spells scale far better.
In other words: while vestiges offer serious power at lower levels, they'd become worthless at higher levels because your spells would easily overshadow everything they did.
So, in my mind, that fix simply does not work.

However, this conversation has led to some fantastic developments IMHO...

The vestige pact warlock has had the following changes made:

List of pact augmentations has been reduced. Options that are looking at being removed have been struck through.
Each vestige has at least one power that requires the expenditure of spell slots to function. Some were already written this way, and others have had it added as a balancing factor.
Various minor tweaks, such as reducing damage output for some powers and things like that.

Also, I am considering dropping the Factotum due the extensive nature of the rewrite, but plan to add it to a future volume.
Instead, I might add in yet-another Sorcerous Origin that I have yet to even write up lol

[barbecube]

I have been thinking a lot about the sha'ir you presented here, and i'm wondering if there's some way to make the mephit assistant a little more genie-like. There isn't a whole lot of mechanical identity to 5e genies, but maybe it can be something descriptive? "Elemental emissaries wear clothing and jewelry that signify their station, and this will alert intelligent elementals to your relationship with a powerful genie patron."

[Artagon]

Late to the party, I know.. But the Spellfire Adept made me register here so I could reply to this thread, lol. So congrats! :D

I think you have a really strong concept here, in that I love the idea of burning sorcery points (SP) to use spellfire. That was super creative! The thing is, it is pretty wretched in damage and healing as written. Consider that you could use 6 SP to cast a level 4 burning hands at level 7. This would have the same area as spellfire in its cone form, and it would do 6d6 damage. Conversely, at level 18 when you could finally get a 22 constitution you'll do 6d4 damage by using the same number of SP.

I realize that part of your balance is that a spellfire sorcerer can pick up a far more utility driven spell list, but even given that you have severely under-powered this option. Here is another example. A Warlock with a couple of invocations can do 4d10 + cha dmg with their eldritch blast, which has a long range, also pushing the enemy further away. This requires no expenditure of sorcery points.

Due to these factors, I would say that the base Spellfire could stand to grow as per a cantrip in its base form, with the ability to push additional SP into it to enhance the damage beyond cantrip levels.

Here is an example of how I might do it:

Spellfire:
You may spend 2 SP to to create either a 30ft line or a 15ft cone of flame. Creatures caught in this area must make a Dexterity saving throw against your sorcerer spell save DC. Creatures that fail this saving throw take 1d4 + Cha Mod fire damage, or half as much damage on a successful save. This damage increases by 1d4 at 5th level, 11th level, and 17th level. You may spend additional SP, up to your constitution modifier to increase this damage. Each point spent in this way increases the damage by 1d4.

Using this method, you could cap your damage at 10d4 + cha mod for 8 SP. This is the equivalent of Eldritch blast with a higher damage curve and an AoE instead of single target.

Similarly, the healing from Arcane Suture is lack-luster, which might be ok, since it is a sorcerer.. but 1 level of cleric nips that idea in the bud. Two SP allows you to recover a lvl 1 spell slot. With one level in Life Cleric, you heal 1d8+wis+3. Should it be THAT good? Maybe not, but consider that 5 SP in your method is 10 hp, vs spending them on Cure Wounds, for 3d8+wis+5.

Here is another option for you:

Arcane Suture: Beginning at 6th level, you may use the power of spellfire to heal wounds, both your own and those of others. You may use an action to touch a creature and spend 1 SP. The touched creature gains 3 hit points plus an additional number of hit points equal to your charisma (maybe con) modifier. You may spend additional SP on this ability. Each additional SP spent increases the healing by 3 points.

Keep in mind that the option presented above still does less overall healing than splashing one level of Life domain Cleric, but it does make the splash less appealing due to being a reliable source of healing.

I would finally say that drain magic item is probably far too low in how much it supplies to the caster. A level 20 sorcerer has 20 SP. You really only want to give them back 1/4th of that when draining a legendary item?

P.S.:
Simply limiting the maximum SP a player can spend on Spellfire to 1/2 the caster's level (min 2) might be enough to limit the power of spellfire without involving constitution.