Opinions on Kryx's houserules? [Archive] - Giant in the Playground Forums

Kryx

2017-08-20, 12:44 PM

Druid should probably have been done as a half caster that gains extra attacks with moon druid capabilities
If you view wild shape as a core feature of all Druids.

I've never been a huge fan of the idea of all druids being master shapers - that is one subclass imo.

Archetypes I'd like to see, each of which would fill the void of Wildshape with something different:

Companions. I wouldn't mind for Rangers and Druids to share the companion mechanic. It's flavorful for both, and there could be differences between the features each companion gets to prevent complete overlap. Rangers are oriented towards martial combat, while Druids are oriented towards magic; their respective companions can reflect that.
Summoning. Wizard touches on this, but there's plenty of room to explore still. These Druids tap into the life force of the world to summon bestial spirits. Similar to the Shepherd circle found in UA, but with a more intense focus and feel of a Shaman (but no totems).
Feral Shapeshifting. Instead of Wildshape, this archetype could focus on amplifying Alter Self, Barkskin, Enchance Ability, Polymorph, and other self changing/buffing spells. It could also incorporate some of those spells' affects into independent archetype features, such as unarmored defense and innate natural weapons.
Elementalist. A Druid that focuses on the elements themselves. Land Druid comes close to this, however only for 1 chosen element; it would need some tweaking to properly differentiate it. Land Druid is a more utility oriented archetype about connection to the land, be it exploration, plants, etc. Maybe Land druid could focus on plant and terraforming spells. Elementalist is more about elemental DPS.
Herbalist. A healing archetype revolving around healing remedies and the divine aspect of Druidic magic. Encourages the use of the innate herablism kit proficiency the base Druid already has. 5e would need better crafting rules, but the archetype could reduce cost/time it takes to make potions in a fashion Wizard does for scribing spells of a certain school. Other benefits could pertain to healing spells and such.
Pestilence. Obviously a darker archetype which would deal with themes pertaining to 3 horsemen of the apocalypse: famine, pestilence, and death. Think of a Witch Doctor. Deals with all kinds of negative superstition, bad omens, insects, and plagues.

Those ideas are the quintessential druid ideas. Forcing shape shifting on to all of them doesn't make sense imo. The method of using spell slots to power shape changing is the one I've considered using many times and the one I'd heavily favor.

TheUser

2017-08-20, 03:15 PM

I'm not sure what his goal was with the sorcerer....taking away their iconic feature (metamagic) and making them feats just seems like he resents that they alone get them and that giving them to other arcane casters somehow -doesn't- break the game...it does. Metamagic is balanced around the sorcerer list and giving it to wizards who don't multi-class is not well thought out.

Eschew materials; woopdy doo! Or you can just have an arcane focus (since it accomplishes what eschew materials does...). Sorcerer base class is just a wizard without the sweet features or expanded spell list. All the power has been shifted away from the base class and into the archetypes.

There are some interesting rules sprinkled in there; stacking dis/advantage with the +/- 2 or 4 was a nice thought. But others subclasses I wouldn't touch. Reverting to 4.0 combination saves is something that would be an interesting way to make saves higher for players.

In short, if someone wanted to use this I'd ask them why? If they wanted metamagic without the confines of the sorcerer spell list I'd tell them to get real.

Ravinsild

2017-08-20, 05:13 PM

I don't have much of an opinion. I don't even think D&D is the right system for me in general. I tend to like very specialized concepts like "Fire Mage" or something, where they focus on a very particular shtick and I dislike the general way most guides optimize casters. Also I really, really like gishes and most gishes don't give me the blaster/warrior feel, it's more like "then i use magic to make me hit harder or be harder to hit" rather than "i cut one guy in half with my sword and with my other launch a firebeam that incinerates another guy" feeling. Nothing really seems to super particularly support these styles of play though.

90% of full caster builds are "make sure to get all the utility spells and make sure to have the most wide range of spells possible" than straight "I only use fire spells and I only use them offensively" like, say, a "Red Burn Deck" from MTG or something. Also gishes don't really act like I want them to. Maybe I've just played video games too much, especially MMOs, where everything is highly specialized and niche and you're either "Tank/DPS/Healer" instead of "general caster" so it's affected how I think about classes or something.

Kryx

2017-08-20, 05:24 PM

I don't have much of an opinion.
Then why did you post the rant on this thread instead of another one?

@ZMan: thanks for the kind words btw. It's nice to read that my rules “achieves quite good balance” even if we don't implement the same solutions to problems that we commonly see eye to eye on.

Ravinsild

2017-08-20, 05:42 PM

Then why did you post the rant on this thread instead of another one?

@ZMan: thanks for the kind words btw. It's nice to read that my rules “achieves quite good balance” even if we don't implement the same solutions to problems that we commonly see eye to eye on.

Because your approach also doesn't have specialist classes in the way I like :P But for what they are, objectively, they're very good.

Edit: As a side not I like your Two-Weapon Fighting fix and the sort of "Titan's Grip"-esque feeling you gave Barbarians. Very hype if that were official.

Tetrasodium

2017-08-20, 05:55 PM

If you view wild shape as a core feature of all Druids.

I've never been a huge fan of the idea of all druids being master shapers - that is one subclass imo.

Those ideas are the quintessential druid ideas. Forcing shape shifting on to all of them doesn't make sense imo. The method of using spell slots to power shape changing is the one I've considered using many times and the one I'd heavily favor.

I agree that there should be viable caster options for druids, but land druid is not it & is more of just a strange nature cleric with one hand tied behind their back & moon druid is actually quite good (especially on a kobold) those things that you mention work well for the spellcasting side where land kinda fails, but not the wildshaped side

Zman

2017-08-20, 09:22 PM

Then why did you post the rant on this thread instead of another one?

@ZMan: thanks for the kind words btw. It's nice to read that my rules “achieves quite good balance” even if we don't implement the same solutions to problems that we commonly see eye to eye on.

Credit where credit is due. Most of our disagreements were about approach and "heavyhandedness", not about the balance of the result. You favored a larger rewrite to achieve very good balance, I more leaned towards easier to implement smaller fixes. It was scope vs effect, great vs better etc.

guachi

2017-08-20, 09:43 PM

Most of the changes seem pointlessly fiddly. I've added rules similar to this in my own game, but only a few.

For example, I use d12+d8 for ability checks (but not saves or attack rolls).

I use gaining a level of exhaustion when you fall to zero hp.

And I've modified rest rules a bit from Gritty Realism.

But not 100+ pages of rulings. No way, no how.

Tetrasodium

2017-08-20, 10:58 PM

Baptor

2017-08-21, 12:00 AM

I'm also working on a magus half caster (int) which progressed pretty well.

Kryx, I've told you before, but I just want you to know I think you're a genius at designing this kind of stuff. Please make the Magus (and let me know if you do!). I love Gishes and 5e seriously lacks a good Arcane Gish at the moment.

I don't have much of an opinion. I don't even think D&D is the right system for me in general. I tend to like very specialized concepts like "Fire Mage" or something, where they focus on a very particular shtick and I dislike the general way most guides optimize casters. Also I really, really like gishes and most gishes don't give me the blaster/warrior feel, it's more like "then i use magic to make me hit harder or be harder to hit" rather than "i cut one guy in half with my sword and with my other launch a firebeam that incinerates another guy" feeling. Nothing really seems to super particularly support these styles of play though.

*Sigh* I know how you feel. I've been playing D&D for 19 years and I've spent all that time looking for a good Gish and never truly finding one that pleased me. The Duskblade from 3.5 was pretty good, you could blast and attack and it was fairly legit. I've heard the Pathfinder Magus class works, but it was so complicated I never could wrap my head around it. I'm hoping Kryx can somehow pull one out of his hat. If anyone can, it's him.

Kane0

2017-08-21, 01:21 AM

I'm also working on a magus half caster (int) which progressed pretty well.

I regard you and your work highly enough that I would pretty much pay to have you include just a part of my Int halfcaster.

qube

2017-08-21, 02:17 AM

no clue how far I'm gonna get but ...
rolling 2d10 instead of 1d20? rather not. It scews powerplay even more (the difference between +1 AC for a high AC is super huge now)
short rest 5 minutes? as I gathered, it's intended that sometimes you get multiple encounters per short rest
why chosen to drop plate armor as best armor of game, dispite keeping it's epic cost, is very odd to me
a mace being versatile doesn't really make sense to me
why Scimitar lost it's off-hand moniker is also weird
I see no need to make greatsword/maul better weapons then they already are (you gain 1.5 damage for the loss of the option to use it one-handed)
...
and, yeah, the fact it's 157 pages ...

Markoff Chainey

2017-08-21, 02:23 AM

We made our own houserules, but based a lot on the things Kryx did, many thanksfor all that effort!

Things we did not use, for example, while I am a big fan of Kryx "split" Feats, my group is not and we have a differently balanced weapons table that includes 3 types of shields and stuff like that. I am a huge fan of the Summoner! As a DM, it is very easy to balance when you give the summoned critter some "sentient character" (and it is a lot of fun).

Our houserules doc is "only" 28 pages, but those are only changes... Kryx document looks threatening, but is acutally very nice because you can use it as a rule document unlike ours that lists only changes.

It would be awesome if D&D beyond would allow you to overwrite the orginal rules with your own changes... but I doubt that will be done.

Kobard

2017-08-21, 03:55 AM

Kryx is a tinkerer, and I have a good friend who is also one. This is a blessing and a curse. On the one hand, they are deeply concerned and devoted to balance. But at the same time, they also tinker not just because they can but because it can almost be something akin to a compulsion. Tinkerers, IME, are never satisfied. This often leaves the state of rules in a constant flux. Things get altered almost at the drop of a hat. And it can be annoying. The core rulebook may not be balanced, but at least you know what the rules will be like when you return to the system in a month. With a tinkerer? Who knows? So I can get why people find these sort of comprehensive rules adjustments exhausting and not worth the hassle.

There is a lot of things that I do like about what Kryx attempts with their houserules, but there is also a lot that rubs me the wrong way. For example, the Warlock. I like that they expand the Warlock's cantrips by one. I find the switch to spell points intriguing, and I would have to investigate those rules closer at a later point. I like how he . But I loathe how they neutered the Tomelock. Sure the Tomelock was slightly better than the Chain or Bladelock, but that was mainly because it offered versatile utility while the Bladelock required more investment. But both the Chain and Bladelock get vastly improved boons - with the Chainlock getting a free invocation and the Bladelock getting an additional free feat - but the Tomelock loses one of their cantrips with nothing to compensate for it. He turned it from one of the strongest of the three boons to easily the weakest one. Major ouch and a huge strike against his warlock. I also loathe things like his alteration to the Raven Queen pact that forces players to choose the Chainlock. No. No. And NO! Burn that **** with eternal dumpster hellfire.

(Also his paragraph on replacing invocations as you gain level is misplaced behind the Tomelock paragraphs.)

DanyBallon

2017-08-21, 07:27 AM

*Sigh* I know how you feel. I've been playing D&D for 19 years and I've spent all that time looking for a good Gish and never truly finding one that pleased me. The Duskblade from 3.5 was pretty good, you could blast and attack and it was fairly legit. I've heard the Pathfinder Magus class works, but it was so complicated I never could wrap my head around it. I'm hoping Kryx can somehow pull one out of his hat. If anyone can, it's him.

I was able to get a feel close to what your looking for, but it requires to take a broader look at the action.

Let me try to explain; in on session, we are woke up by enemies rushing our camp. My EK wakes up and start donning his armor, while the others rush into combat. After a few rounds, I paused and picked up my bow to shoot down an enemy (and I missed terribly), the round after, I ditch the bow, and cast a Ray of Frost killing a bandit. On the next round I continue to don my armor, and a bandit decide to attack me. The round after I pick my sword and finished him. On my last round I terminated the last bandit running away with a Ray of Frost.

If you break it down to round by round like I just did, it doesn't look like I'm wielding both sword and magic, but if you take a step back, and keep in consideration that a round last 6 seconds, then you get a cinematic scene where my character was effectively doing both in an almost seamlessly fashion.

Kryx

2017-08-21, 12:08 PM

Kryx, I've told you before, but I just want you to know I think you're a genius at designing this kind of stuff. Please make the Magus (and let me know if you do!). I love Gishes and 5e seriously lacks a good Arcane Gish at the moment.
I'm hoping Kryx can somehow pull one out of his hat. If anyone can, it's him.
Wow, thanks for the kind words. It's incredibly encouraging to hear such things, seriously.
If I make the magus work it'll appear on my Homebrew. I'm not sure how best to collect feedback for my work. Perhaps one thread on the Homebrew forum for it all.

I regard you and your work highly enough that I would pretty much pay to have you include just a part of my Int halfcaster.
Wow, I thought you didn't like me or my work much at all. This is very high praise - thanks!
What do you mean by “include part of my int halfcaster”? Is there a specific mechanic or idea? I've looked at several of them to get ideas so far. I will be sure to look at yours.

rolling 2d10 instead of 1d20? rather not. It scews powerplay even more (the difference between +1 AC for a high AC is super huge now)
2d10 isn't unheard of. Zman uses it for skills for example. We've only tried it for a few sessions, but so far I really enjoy the difference it brings.
That said you don't have to like or use all of the alternative rules I use to enjoy others.

short rest 5 minutes? as I gathered, it's intended that sometimes you get multiple encounters per short rest
Making short rests 5 minutes is a common suggestion to allow short rest classes to benefit from short rests as many groups push through for a long rest. It's commonly recommend and commonly used.

why chosen to drop plate armor as best armor of game, dispite keeping it's epic cost, is very odd to me
Plate is still the best armor in the game. It requires no ability score investment at all and is only matched by half plate with 2 Dex investment. Spending 750 gold more makes sense to allow you to invest nothing into Dex.

a mace being versatile doesn't really make sense to me
A RAW mace is a strictly inferior quarterstaff that costs more. This is a simple solution to bringing it more in line, mechanically. For flavor: if you Google images of a mace plenty can be used with two hands. It makes as much sense as all longsword a being able to be two handed.

why Scimitar lost it's off-hand moniker is also weird
To differentiate it from the short sword. Though I should probably just combine the two into one line instead.

I see no need to make greatsword/maul better weapons then they already are (you gain 1.5 damage for the loss of the option to use it one-handed)
The point of inherent weapon properties is multipurpose:

Allow players to switch weapons without feeling weaker due to them picking a different specialization.
Differentiate weapons, allowing them to feel more unique.
Add a balancing factor to weapons other than TWF which has a power boost at early levels due to the simplification of the twf rules.
Though I will be the first to admit that I'm not happy with the lack of properties on other weapons. I want to expand those other weapons as well, but it's more difficult than I anticipated. I'll need to do something better here.

We made our own houserules, but based a lot on the things Kryx did, many thanksfor all that effort!
Thanks for the appreciation post! :)

Kryx is a tinkerer, and I have a good friend who is also one. This is a blessing and a curse. On the one hand, they are deeply concerned and devoted to balance. But at the same time, they also tinker not just because they can but because it can almost be something akin to a compulsion. Tinkerers, IME, are never satisfied. This often leaves the state of rules in a constant flux. Things get altered almost at the drop of a hat. And it can be annoying. The core rulebook may not be balanced, but at least you know what the rules will be like when you return to the system in a month. With a tinkerer? Who knows? So I can get why people find these sort of comprehensive rules adjustments exhausting and not worth the hassle.
This is one of the the most accurate descriptions of me that I have ever read, ha. Thanks for writing it.

I loathe how they neutered the Tomelock. Sure the Tomelock was slightly better than the Chain or Bladelock, but that was mainly because it offered versatile utility while the Bladelock required more investment. But both the Chain and Bladelock get vastly improved boons - with the Chainlock getting a free invocation and the Bladelock getting an additional free feat - but the Tomelock loses one of their cantrips with nothing to compensate for it. He turned it from one of the strongest of the three boons to easily the weakest one.
Pact of the tome still has nearly the same overall power. I moved one cantrip from it to the base class to help balance tome vs blade and chain. 2 cantrips from other classes is quite a good feature imo. Additionally access to one of the strongest invocations in book of ancient secrets (rituals) makes for a rather compelling pact.
Pact of the chain is barely buffed. Only no material cost and telepathy.
Pact of the blade is only buffed to have decent AC - a requirement for being a functioning solo class that doesn't require multiclassing.
I'm not seeing how pact of the tome is the weakest option when the pact is picked up. You might have a point about the upgrades though.
I am somewhat considering expanding pacts as done: https://www.reddit.com/r/UnearthedArcana/comments/6umw26/the_warlock_revised_a_heavy_revision_of_the_5e?sor t=top
Thoughts on that regard? Either keep it forced as that guy did or perhaps just add more upgrades to leave it up to the individual.

Ialso loathe things like his alteration to the Raven Queen pact that forces players to choose the Chainlock. No. No. And NO! Burn that **** with eternal dumpster hellfire.
The RAW Raven Queen is a blatant attempt to patch the pact of the chain to not make it terrible. Hexblade is a blatant attempt to do the same for the pact of the Blade. When that Warlock UA came out there were many that rejected those subclasses for this reason and I am one of them. However after looking at the fluff the Raven Queen had some interesting ideas so I kept it around without it being a necessary fix to pact of the chain.

Theodoxus

2017-08-21, 03:50 PM

Kane0

2017-08-21, 04:52 PM

Wow, I thought you didn't like me or my work much at all. This is very high praise - thanks!
What do you mean by “include part of my int halfcaster”? Is there a specific mechanic or idea? I've looked at several of them to get ideas so far. I will be sure to look at yours.

I'm not sure what I might have said to give that impression but I assure you that is not the case. I respect the effort that goes into any good brew, and it takes a lot to basically rewrite the PHB for no reason other than you want to. If my players were willing i'd be using a lot more of your changes than I currently do but alas their dedication does not match ours so I am forced to take a less overhauly approach.

The stuff i referred to is in my sig, in perpetual beta like all my 'brew. I too drew from other sources, chances are you'll find something familiar in there.

Kryx

2017-08-21, 05:27 PM

I know this would be an amazing amount of work, but I think it'd be very beneficial both to readers and to those following your path - but would it be possible to include your reasoning behind the changes you make - much like the post above does?

RAI, for me at least, is far more important than RAW. I really wish WotC would provide explanation as to why they went with Z instead of Y in X instance, and Y instead of Z in W instance...
People already complain about the number of pages!

Fully agreed about RAI and reasoning being important. For large reworks like Sorcerer, Warlock, Monk, etc I have included some explanation. What, specifically, would you desire more explanation about?

I wonder how I can implement explanations in a good way. For the rules in the beginning i can include a note with a paragraph or two and possibly a link to discussion, but for other single word changes in classes for example it's harder to clarify.

I'm not sure what I might have said to give that impression but I assure you that is not the case. I respect the effort that goes into any good brew, and it takes a lot to basically rewrite the PHB for no reason other than you want to. If my players were willing i'd be using a lot more of your changes than I currently do but alas their dedication does not match ours so I am forced to take a less overhauly approach.

The stuff i referred to is in my sig, in perpetual beta like all my 'brew. I too drew from other sources, chances are you'll find something familiar in there.
I'm not sure either. I guess I was mistaken. Thanks for the kind words again.
My players talked me out of killing a few sacred cows like ability scores as well - sometimes I do restrain my desires. :P
I'll take a look at your arcane half caster when I try to finish my magus (it'll probably be a few weeks as I get back from vacation later this week and have some things to take care of).

bulbaquil

2017-08-21, 05:34 PM

With the stipulation that this is solely my opinion based on a cursory read-through and with no playtesting, and with the further stipulation that my personal preferences don't always necessarily tend towards the most "balanced" gameplay (also, well done Kryx):

Stuff I like:
- 2d10, combined with the changes to armor AC you write in, seems to fit better with the bounded-accuracy ethos.
- Condensing the saves back into Fort/Ref/Will - it's obvious the designers were still thinking in those terms (hence the proliferation of CON, DEX, and WIS saves relative to the others)
- Underwater combat rules
- Delaying action is a thing (I basically "silent-houserule" this anyway)
- Adding the exhaustion level on a drop to 0 hp - makes falling in battle more than just a mild inconvenience, even if you don't die, and therefore makes self-preservation and good tactics more important
- About time the game realized swimming in full plate is difficult
- Everything about the Brawn and Finesse skills

Stuff I don't like:
- 5e has too few skills as it is, and requires no further skill consolidation. If balancing the weaker skills is a concern, separate out the stronger skills.
- Why no passive perception?
- Stacking advantage adds fiddly +'s and -'s that would make the game feel too much like 3.5/PF.
- Monster knowledge checks should ideally not be part of the mechanics at all, and certainly shouldn't be based on the creature type/CR. Monsters are an element of the setting, and the difficulty of the check should logically be based on the rarity of the monster - which will vary from setting to setting, and isn't necessarily dependent on the monster's challenge rating. This system preserves the 3.5/PF absurdity of needing to pass a DC 10 Society check to know what race you, yourself, are.
- 5 death saves before death removes the urgency of tending to downed party members.

guachi

2017-08-21, 05:42 PM

kinda like some of those, might steal the d12+d8 ability check thing at some point

I use this for two reasons:

1. The d12 is an underused die. It looks pretty and rolls nicely.

2. 9, 10, 11, 12, 13 all have the same chance of occurring.

The 2e DMG recommended it for random encounter tables as the middle 5 numbers could be used for common encounters and it's much simpler than laying out a d100 table.

If you want non-linear results (and I did for ability checks. Saves and Attacks can be random. I think that's good) you can roll 2d10 or 3d6 or, as here, d12+d8. It makes low and high rolls much rarer, obviously. But, assuming most difficulty rolls aren't really high, it makes your actual ability bonus more important. If you're actually good at something (because of skill or raw ability) it makes rolling less than a 10 very rare so skilled people can pass basic DC10 checks routinely.

Kane0

2017-08-21, 05:59 PM

Kryx, I just noticed you don't have cloth/padded armor* in your revision. The world needs more gambesons!
*Consult Shadiversity for further information.

DeAnno

2017-08-21, 06:13 PM

I never really agreed with some of his fundamental balancing premises so the work as a whole doesn't appeal very much to me, despite some aesthetic value. This is based on things I remember from looking over it months ago, mind, so if there have been recent major changes mea culpa

I think that a Feat doesn't necessarily have to be equal to or weaker than an ASI. In fact, I am of the opinion that most feats should be stronger than main-stat-ASIs in the appropriate situation because feats are fun and ASIs are boring, and because specialization should be rewarded instead of a trap.
I think casters tend to be stronger than martials in 5e, albeit to less of an extent than in 3.5e. High martial DPR and the use of strong feats help mitigate this partially (because ASIs are very strong for SAD-ish caster builds), so those paradigms should be left alone where possible.
From these premises, it should be clear I favor bringing the other martial styles up to match the GWM/Sharpshooter crowd instead of the reverse. Kryx seems to hold more with bringing the strong outliers down.

I remember this as being my biggest beef with the system. I didn't like the Sorcerer rework either, but that was more a matter of style than substance.

EvilAnagram

2017-08-21, 06:24 PM

His house rules accomplish very little at the cost of slowing down the game and inflating the rules minutiae. I genuinely dislike them.

FinnS

2017-08-21, 06:54 PM

To differentiate it from the short sword. Though I should probably just combine the two into one line instead.

Except a Scimitar already differeniants itself from the Shortsword by being a slashing weapon instead of piercing.
It's the only finesse slashing weapon above d4 damage in fact so it needs to be left on its own and as is.

Oh and Plate armor requires a STR of 16 or lose '10 movement and be disadvantaged on all kinds of checks. So to say Plate requires no Stat investment is obviously incorrect.

Easy_Lee

2017-08-21, 10:07 PM

Kryx, I just noticed you don't have cloth/padded armor* in your revision. The world needs more gambesons!
*Consult Shadiversity for further information.

I, too, think this is a big deal. Gambesons were more effective, easier to repair, and cheaper than most kinds of leather armor. And on that note, studded leather should really be called brigandine; the "studs" mean that pieces of metal are attached, probably forming an interior layer. In the modern Internet age, D&D really ought to get up-to-date.

Kane0

2017-08-21, 11:12 PM

Indeed. The way my table currently does armor is:

Light Armor:
Leather/Hide: 11 + Dex
Cloth (Gambeson): 12 + Dex
Brigandine: 13 + Dex (Stealth Disadv)

Medium Armor:
Ring/Scale: AC 14 + Dex (max 2) (Stealth Disadv)
Mail (Chain): AC 15 + Dex (max 2)
Plated Mail/Breastplate: AC 16 + Dex (max 2)

Heavy Armor:
Banded/Splint: AC 16 (Stealth Disadv)
Half Plate: AC 17
Full Plate: AC 18 (Stealth Disadv)

Not perfect but hey, has worked so far.

Luccan

2017-08-22, 03:40 AM

I skimmed, so I don't know how I feel about all of it, but nothing seems wrong with it. It's long, but if you have a lot of houserules, better to have them consolidated like this. Although... Maybe I missed it in the human subraces, but do half-elves just not exist? I know in the core game they're considered one of the better racial choices and by some people, too good, but I didn't notice another race that was just flat-out deleted. I can't think of any particular reason why. Half-orcs are still in, so half-humans are ok, and all the other "I'm special" races and subraces still exist. Kinda threw me off. Again, I could have missed it, but it seemed odd.

Kryx

2017-08-22, 04:05 AM

Stuff I don't like:
- 5e has too few skills as it is, and requires no further skill consolidation. If balancing the weaker skills is a concern, separate out the stronger skills.
- Why no passive perception?
- Stacking advantage adds fiddly +'s and -'s that would make the game feel too much like 3.5/PF.
- Monster knowledge checks should ideally not be part of the mechanics at all, and certainly shouldn't be based on the creature type/CR. Monsters are an element of the setting, and the difficulty of the check should logically be based on the rarity of the monster - which will vary from setting to setting, and isn't necessarily dependent on the monster's challenge rating. This system preserves the 3.5/PF absurdity of needing to pass a DC 10 Society check to know what race you, yourself, are.
- 5 death saves before death removes the urgency of tending to downed party members.
- Finesse is a combination of skills, which you love, but you don't like the reduction of skills? Confusing. There are several skills that have such little value compared to top tier skills. Skills like animal handling and survival quite easily fit into nature, making it a good skill that is more comparable to the strength of skills like perception. Athletics is a combination of 3 skills from earlier editions. Perception is a combination of two. Niche skills can't exist in a world of combined skills. Niche uses of a skill, sure, but not the whole skill.
- when I design a dungeon using passive perception makes things like traps seem pointless. Why even bother adding traps that a PC can automatically see? Or for another skill: why bother adding a social encounters that passive insight would easily discover a lie? That model doesn't make sense to me.
- advantage without stacking creates silly scenarios imo. I use numbers because it's much easier than having a PC roll another dice, especially on roll20. Stacking very rarely occurs anyways.
- monster knowledge: of course type matters. A person who studies arcane knowledge surely knows more about magical creatures and possibly not much about beasts (unless they studied them). How do you handle knowing about monsters? Knowledge skills surely have an impact.
- "5 death saves before death removes the urgency of tending to downed party members" that's exactly the goal. This allows possibly up to a minute to heal or stabilize. Seems entirely reasonable to me in terms of fluff and the increased time is a desired change for how I want individual PCs to die a bit less to encounters they overcome as a group.

Kryx, I just noticed you don't have cloth/padded armor* in your revision. The world needs more gambesons!
Gambesons would fit the same tier as leather - feel free to replace leather with it. That seemed like the right tier to place it when I did my research.

I think that a Feat doesn't necessarily have to be equal to or weaker than an ASI. In fact, I am of the opinion that most feats should be stronger than main-stat-ASIs in the appropriate situation because feats are fun and ASIs are boring, and because specialization should be rewarded instead of a trap.
All but a handful of feats are comparable in power to an ASI. Perhaps you want to change all feats to increase their power to match those few. No thanks from me.

I think casters tend to be stronger than martials in 5e, albeit to less of an extent than in 3.5e. High martial DPR and the use of strong feats help mitigate this partially (because ASIs are very strong for SAD-ish caster builds), so those paradigms should be left alone where possible.
Adding more damage to martials doesn't fix the (muted in 5e) caster-martial divide. The RAW rules create a significant tier list amongst martials which places classes like Barbarian and Paladin at the top and Monk and Ranger at the bottom (even after accounting for things like spellcasting differences). The desire you express maintains that imbalance amongst the martials.
The changes I've made have a large impact on martial balance and a very small impact on the caster-martial divide. The caster-martial divide is often used as an excuse or diversion tactic to ignore the martial imbalance.
Check out my DPR charts. Top tier classes like Paladin and Barbarian lose very little while other classes like Monk and Ranger are greatly brought up to snuff.

From these premises, it should be clear I favor bringing the other martial styles up to match the GWM/Sharpshooter crowd instead of the reverse. Kryx seems to hold more with bringing the strong outliers down.
Try to balance martials with GWM/Sharpshooter. It's impossible. -5/-10 as a feature improves disproportionately based on already strong features (advantage). Also removing the melee and ranged differences (cover) makes ranged options too strong in comparison to melee.

Except a Scimitar already differeniants itself from the Shortsword by being a slashing weapon instead of piercing.
It's the only finesse slashing weapon above d4 damage in fact so it needs to be left on its own and as is.
You're right, I forgot the damage type. I'm on mobile on vacation so it's hard to verify. I'll restore scimitar to it's raw values.

Oh and Plate armor requires a STR of 16 or lose '10 movement and be disadvantaged on all kinds of checks. So to say Plate requires no Stat investment is obviously incorrect.
It's 15 strength, as it is by RAW, not 16. Heavy armor wearers already invest into strength so it's not an extra cost, it's a default cost. Whereas a greatsword wielder investing in dexterity for half plate is using his tertiary ability score at best.
In the other case you have a Dexterity based paladin or Fighter archetype that now has comparable AC with similar stat investment (at least 14 Dex, and Dex damage is significantly lower than strength based damage so the other factors should be fine). Half plate costs less? Sure because it requires less material - the same as leather costs less. If you don't want material/labor based armor costs then you're free to use the super low costs in 4e for example. I considered it.

Kryx

2017-08-22, 04:10 AM

Maybe I missed it in the human subraces, but do half-elves just not exist? I know in the core game they're considered one of the better racial choices and by some people, too good, but I didn't notice another race that was just flat-out deleted. I can't think of any particular reason why. Half-orcs are still in, so half-humans are ok, and all the other "I'm special" races and subraces still exist. Kinda threw me off. Again, I could have missed it, but it seemed odd.
I removed them, which you're making me reconsider. I was not a fan of their racial traits - they're shunned by both humans and elves. Having them get so much charisma makes little sense.
I initially created half elves with more of a combination of human and elf racial traits, but they were so similar to elves that I threw it all away. I recently redid humans so perhaps I can now create a good mechanical half elf (flavor wise they were fine). I'll try again.

Races as a whole are rather large and somewhat disorganized. I'm not fully happy with several that I just haven't taken the time to work on.

Terra Reveene

2017-08-22, 04:40 AM

I use this for two reasons:

1. The d12 is an underused die. It looks pretty and rolls nicely.

2. 9, 10, 11, 12, 13 all have the same chance of occurring.

The 2e DMG recommended it for random encounter tables as the middle 5 numbers could be used for common encounters and it's much simpler than laying out a d100 table.

If you want non-linear results (and I did for ability checks. Saves and Attacks can be random. I think that's good) you can roll 2d10 or 3d6 or, as here, d12+d8. It makes low and high rolls much rarer, obviously. But, assuming most difficulty rolls aren't really high, it makes your actual ability bonus more important. If you're actually good at something (because of skill or raw ability) it makes rolling less than a 10 very rare so skilled people can pass basic DC10 checks routinely.

I have a question, to both you and Kryx: How do you handle advantage when you roll two separate dice? Or do you just ignore it, because your dice rolling methods actually balances out unlucky rolls and takes into account the character's actual skill a lot better than 1d20 does? I'm asking because I'd love to implement it into my own rulebook, but I'd like some input from people who've played with the system more than I've done before implementing it (learning from others' mistakes and all that).

Terra Reveene

2017-08-22, 04:57 AM

-
- when I design a dungeon using passive perception makes things like traps seem pointless. Why even bother adding traps that a PC can automatically see? Or for another skill: why bother adding a social encounters that passive insight would easily discover a lie? That model doesn't make sense to me.

Make traps roll stealth checks against player passive Perception. Don't allow the player characters to roll Perception to look for traps, actually make them tell you what they're searching through and how. The trap is trying to hide from the PCs after all, and it should get a bonus to stealth depending on how well hidden it is.

This way, a high enough passive Perception won't mean that all traps are automatically revealed, it just means that a lot of them will be. And disallowing constant searches for traps and forcing palyers to actually make decisions as to how they want to handle a room makes them more fun.
It's also the way traps SHOULD work, but they don't for some reason.

I'd recommend looking at The Angry GM's take on traps. What I said above is an overly simplified version of what he's done. He also goes into great detail surrounding passive skills as well. I hope some of these links work, I'm not sure what the rules for linking stuff is on this site, I'm not a frequent poster. It's quite a bit to read, but given that you've written 157+ pages worth of stuff, I don't think you'll have a problem reading 20 or so pages yourself :p

Traps
http://theangrygm.com/traps-suck/
http://theangrygm.com/hide-and-seek-traps/

Passive Skills and Knowledge
http://theangrygm.com/dont-roll-the-dice-when-you-can-hide-them-instead/
(there's more than that link, but I think it's the best one)

Kryx

2017-08-22, 07:13 AM

I have a question, to both you and Kryx: How do you handle advantage when you roll two separate dice? Or do you just ignore it, because your dice rolling methods actually balances out unlucky rolls and takes into account the character's actual skill a lot better than 1d20 does? I'm asking because I'd love to implement it into my own rulebook, but I'd like some input from people who've played with the system more than I've done before implementing it (learning from others' mistakes and all that).
For advantage I use 3d10 and keep the highest 2. Disadvantage keep the lowest 2. See anydice: http://anydice.com/program/ca0e
Average changes from 10.5 to 11. Advantage average changes from 13.82 to 13.48.
Advantage is therefore slightly less impactful than RAW.

Make traps roll stealth checks against player passive Perception. Don't allow the player characters to roll Perception to look for traps, actually make them tell you what they're searching through and how. The trap is trying to hide from the PCs after all, and it should get a bonus to stealth depending on how well hidden it is.
Static number vs static number is indeed the issue I have with passive perception. Though I'm not convinced that moving the roll from the player to the environment makes much sense, is good design, or is fair to the player.
When a player rolls they can choose to modify their roll with things like advantage. Taking away that roll not only takes away the dice roll which can reduce player enjoyment, but also removes the potential to enhance their ability to find traps.

I don't disagree that traps suck, but this doesn't really solve much imo. Even in his own article for example he says searching for traps takes time, but inherently passive skills don't take time - that's the active side of the skill.

I've tried to read several of the angry GM's articles, but the format is utterly abhorant imo. The format alone kills it and even when I skim through it I often find myself disagreeing with much he says.

The problem with passive skills in general is they assume everyone who knows Arcana knows everything about arcana up to a certain DC. For example a 1st level wizard with typical +3 int and Prof knows everything that is DC 15 or lower. Let's compare using a 1st level wizard:

With rolling: the wizard knows 75% of things requiring a DC 10, 50% of things requiring a DC 15, and 25% of things requiring a DC 20.
With passive: the wizard knows 100% of things requiring a DC 10, 100% of things requiring a DC 15, and 0% of things requiring a DC 20.

The first option represents actual knowledge far more accurately.

Terra Reveene

2017-08-22, 08:28 AM

For advantage I use 3d10 and keep the highest 2. Disadvantage keep the lowest 2. See anydice: http://anydice.com/program/ca0e
Average changes from 10.5 to 11. Advantage average changes from 13.82 to 13.48.
Advantage is therefore slightly less impactful than RAW.

Static number vs static number is indeed the issue I have with passive perception. Though I'm not convinced that moving the roll from the player to the environment makes much sense, is good design, or is fair to the player.
When a player rolls they can choose to modify their roll with things like advantage. Taking away that roll not only takes away the dice roll which can reduce player enjoyment, but also removes the potential to enhance their ability to find traps.

I don't disagree that traps suck, but this doesn't really solve much imo. Even in his own article for example he says searching for traps takes time, but inherently passive skills don't take time - that's the active side of the skill.

I've tried to read several of the angry GM's articles, but the format is utterly abhorant imo. The format alone kills it and even when I skim through it I often find myself disagreeing with much he says.

The problem with passive skills in general is they assume everyone who knows Arcana knows everything about arcana up to a certain DC. For example a 1st level wizard with typical +3 int and Prof knows everything that is DC 15 or lower. Let's compare using a 1st level wizard:

With rolling: the wizard knows 75% of things requiring a DC 10, 50% of things requiring a DC 15, and 25% of things requiring a DC 20.
With passive: the wizard knows 100% of things requiring a DC 10, 100% of things requiring a DC 15, and 0% of things requiring a DC 20.

The first option represents actual knowledge far more accurately.

He uses both passive knowledge AND active knowledge. Though instead of using passive knowledge, he asks "are you proficient in this? Alright then you know this." and if there's special information that not all characters with a high enough passive score would know, he requires a roll for it. Anyone with proficiency in nature could identify a badger, but if there are really rare special hover badgers, then a roll would be required to recognize them (a really dumbed down version of what I'm trying to get across, I hope that works).

As for traps, again, I'd treat them like a hostile creature. Under the normal rules, a hostile creature trying to hide makes a roll against the PCs, I don't see how doing the same for traps is bad in that regard (unless you don't like hostile creatures making stealth checks to begin with). You just need to give the players enough information so that they have the possibility of figuring out what the danger is before it's too late.

Though I'm not convinced that moving the roll from the player to the environment makes much sense, is good design, or is fair to the player.

A PC that gets a really low roll on their Perception check will suspect that they didn't see anything at all (in terms of danger). Likewise, a player that rolled really well will expect to have seen everything (in terms of danger). By switching the roll over to the environment (the thing that's trying to hide), you equalize that. They're now sure they haven't seen everything, but they CAN be sure that they've seen SOME of it. If you have a trap that triggers a pitfall when a door is being opened, then you can have two things that are trying to hide at the same time. The door and the floor. Both would have to make a stealth check. If the players find only one or the other, then they're either not sure what triggers the trap, or they're not sure what the trigger does (it could be a secret passage for all they know).

This would prod them into trying to find out either what triggers the trap (which would require them to look at obvious triggers, requiring a Perception check against passive Stealth (I forgot to mention, but I use passive Stealth as well. I use a total of 6 different passive Scores in my games, sometimes a bit more depending on edge cases). They ONLY make that roll against Stealth if the way they handle the object wouldn't reveal the trigger automatically (such as looking at the doorhandle and seeing a bit of wire inside the keyhole or something. You don't necessarily have to explain to them that it's the trigger to the trap, they could probably put 2 and 2 together).

Or they could discover the trap and, ya know, just not stand near it. The PCs effectively get two chances at discovering the trap automatically. That is to say, they don't have to do anything at all (or at the very least they have to do very little).

Now, the PCs might not notice either one of them. And that's fine. Because they can STILL interact with either one, the other, or both. They could choose to stomp around near the pitfall, seeing if they hear any differences in the floor (the floor might've been a lot cleaner than other sections of the floor, or of different color. That's not something you'd have to hide from the players though. You can just tell them that the floor has a patch that is differently colored.) They might look through the keyhole of the door and notice some wire, or maybe the wire is to the side of the door. Just give them something to work with so that they aren't either completely screwed and don't know it. Just either almost automatically being fine or automatically being screwed is the thing that peopel hate about traps.

In short: It's good design because it makes it so that hostile creatures trying to hide from you to then kill you and traps trying to hide from you and then kill you work exactly the same way, it's just that the trap can't reposition itself (downside) while it can remain perfectly still (upside) while creatures can reposition themselves (upside) and can't remain perfectly still (downside) (this is just in general. I know some traps can move and some creatures can remain still)
It makes sense because traps and hiding creatures are literally trying to achieve the same end result as explained just above.
It's fair to the player because even if their passive Perception doesn't beat any of the traps' stealth checks, they can still look for them and find them (without having to make any Perception checks at all, mind).

This turned out very rambly, I don't have time to look through it so I'm sorry if it looks like a mess. I agree that TAGM's formatting is terrible for giving out information quickly and efficiently, so I can see why you wouldn't want to read through them. I can guarantee you that skimming through them won't do you any good though. I hope that what I assembled above is enough for you to at least see my point of view.

I'll see if I can get something a little bit more comprehensive together. I'm still trying to write out everything myself in a way that makes sense. I can PM you the thing when it's done, but it won't be soon.

This is a thing from earlier

You're right, I forgot the damage type. I'm on mobile on vacation so it's hard to verify. I'll restore scimitar to it's raw values.
You've currently got Scimitars at the same level of power as rapiers, just a different damage type. Comparing them to shortswords is alright, but the change you made to their damage die is fine if you compare them to rapiers instead. They even have the same price tag and everything.

Kobard

2017-08-22, 08:40 AM

I also noticed, Kryx, that in your Warlock section, you indicate on the class info-table that the Warlock gains their Pact Boon at level 3, but the Pact Boon descriptor says it is gained at Level 2.

Pact of the tome still has nearly the same overall power. I moved one cantrip from it to the base class to help balance tome vs blade and chain. 2 cantrips from other classes is quite a good feature imo. Additionally access to one of the strongest invocations in book of ancient secrets (rituals) makes for a rather compelling pact.Jein. Moving a cantrip to every warlock buffs Chainlock and Bladelock, in addition to their other buffs, while nerfing the Tomelock. They unarguably get less benefit for selecting their boon. If the Tomelock is meant to be the arcane grimoire warlock, then perhaps they could also be given one of the ribbon invocations to offset that, similarly to how you give the other Boons boosts. Either Eldritch Sight (at-will detect magic) or Eyes of the Rune Keeper (read all writing) invocations would be compelling additions, with me leaning towards the latter.

Pact of the chain is barely buffed. Only no material cost and telepathy.Yes, but that buff entails part of the Voice of the Chain Master invocation. I don't mind, but what matters is how this change exists in relative balance with the other options.

Pact of the blade is only buffed to have decent AC - a requirement for being a functioning solo class that doesn't require multiclassing.
I'm not seeing how pact of the tome is the weakest option when the pact is picked up. You might have a point about the upgrades though.I think that your buff to Pact of the Blade should be required. It makes the Bladelock more competitive with the Valor Bard.

I am somewhat considering expanding pacts as done: https://www.reddit.com/r/UnearthedArcana/comments/6umw26/the_warlock_revised_a_heavy_revision_of_the_5e?sor t=top
Thoughts on that regard? Either keep it forced as that guy did or perhaps just add more upgrades to leave it up to the individual.It's difficult to say, since everything comes at a cost. I like what they did, as it better informs the player regarding the playstyle or utility that the pact boon entails. I do not, however, agree with all the decisions they made regarding the boon abilities, particularly again with the Tomelock.

The RAW Raven Queen is a blatant attempt to patch the pact of the chain to not make it terrible. Hexblade is a blatant attempt to do the same for the pact of the Blade. When that Warlock UA came out there were many that rejected those subclasses for this reason and I am one of them. However after looking at the fluff the Raven Queen had some interesting ideas so I kept it around without it being a necessary fix to pact of the chain.I don't think that the Raven Queen is meant as a Chainlock patch, since it is a bit redundant with the Chainlock. Most discussion around the Raven Queen, for example, assumed that a Ravenlock would go Tome, especially since there was an invocation for a Raven Queen warlock with the Tome boon.

Kryx

2017-08-22, 09:36 AM

Thanks for your perspective on passives and traps, though I'm afraid I can't agree. I find a roll from the player for each room or floor is sufficient. Perhaps it's naive of me, but it works. I'll try to read more on traps.

You've currently got Scimitars at the same level of power as rapiers, just a different damage type. Comparing them to shortswords is alright, but the change you made to their damage die is fine if you compare them to rapiers instead. They even have the same price tag and everything.
Scimitar, by Google's definition now that I see it, is a shortsword. Keeping it 1d6 is most appropriate I think. Possibly another sword that deals 1d8 slashing and is finesse fits, but I can't find great examples on mobile.

I also noticed, Kryx, that in your Warlock section, you indicate on the class info-table that the Warlock gains their Pact Boon at level 3, but the Pact Boon descriptor says it is gained at Level 2.
Level 3 is what is intended. I considered 2 for a while, but for multiclassing it's too much. I forgot to change the wording. I'll fix it, thanks.

Moving a cantrip to every warlock buffs Chainlock and Bladelock, in addition to their other buffs, while nerfing the Tomelock. They unarguably get less benefit for selecting their boon. If the Tomelock is meant to be the arcane grimoire warlock, then perhaps they could also be given one of the ribbon invocations to offset that, similarly to how you give the other Boons boosts. Either Eldritch Sight (at-will detect magic) or Eyes of the Rune Keeper (read all writing) invocations would be compelling additions, with me leaning towards the latter.
Less benefit compared to RAW is not nearly the same as less benefit compared to the other boons. Neither Eldritch Sight nor Eyes of the Rune Keeper are ribbons and giving them is far beyond balanced for the pact of the tome.

Let's compare:
Tome: you gain two cantrips. These can be a great many options from spare the dying, guidance, thaumaturgy, prestidigitation, thorn whip (less useful now that everything can pull via invocation). Plenty of good options to use, probably more out of combat due to eb.
Chain: you gain find familiar. This benefit is not unique to chain as tome gets it as soon as they take book of ancient secrets. The extra familiars are nice, but nothing broken as magic resistance doesn't apply. I add on the ability to avoid the 15g cost and telepathy. Overall it's a small benefit.
Blade: you have a weapon that you can summon when needed. I add on the arcane focus and Armor.

Overall the only standout issue is the armor. However by choosing the armor you'd forgot invocations like ancient secrets so therefore the cost isn't small. I'm not seeing how tome is weak here. Though I think restoring the 3 cantrips and reducing the overall on the base class is a better choice than what I currently have.

It's difficult to say, since everything comes at a cost. I like what they did, as it better informs the player regarding the playstyle or utility that the pact boon entails. I do not, however, agree with all the decisions they made regarding the boon abilities, particularly again with the Tomelock.
I'm inclined to like his overall concept of larger pacts. It smoothes out the progression and clarifies as you say. I haven't been able to fully examine his implementation as I'm on mobile on vacation. I was planning on giving it a more thorough review when I'm back.

I don't think that the Raven Queen is meant as a Chainlock patch, since it is a bit redundant with the Chainlock. Most discussion around the Raven Queen, for example, assumed that a Ravenlock would go Tome, especially since there was an invocation for a Raven Queen warlock with the Tome boon.
Raven Queen effectively nullifies the need for chain, I agree. Look at Raven Queen's 1st and 6th level features - they are far better than anything chain has to offer and fills the same niche.
That's the core problem that people have with both Raven Queen and Hexblade. They both are patches to underperforming features that provide options that effectively nullify that old option because they are so much better. The two subclasses were seemingly made to patch the underperforming playstyles, however now there is almost no reason to pick blade or chain. Basically you either pick Hexblade or Raven Queen or you pick any of the other patrons and Tome as rituals greatly increase the versatility (power) of a warlock.
Those two "patrons" are really poorly designed.

strangebloke

2017-08-22, 09:38 AM

skimmed the rule book. I do not like the metamagic/sorcerer changes.

Sorcerers may be a little weak, but there's no reason to take metamagic from them. Just give them bonus spells known like a cleric or paladin and you're golden.

I think WotC for some reason thinks that bonus spells known are a divine thing. Kind of weird.

Kryx

2017-08-22, 10:03 AM

Sorcerers may be a little weak, but there's no reason to take metamagic from them. Just give them bonus spells known like a cleric or paladin and you're golden.
Sorcerers are the most unsatisfying class according to a recent enworld poll (http://www.enworld.org/forum/showthread.php?575834-2017-Class-Satisfaction-Survey-Results). It's the only class to have more overall dissatisfaction (50%) than overall satisfaction (47%).
What you suggest, by my wager, would do very little to fix the core satisfaction problems which are readily apparent in that poll. Sorcerers need much more than that.

Easy_Lee

2017-08-22, 10:24 AM

Kryx

2017-08-22, 10:30 AM

I wonder what it is about sorcerers that dissatisfies people compared with the other casters. Wild mage is bad I know, but dragon sorcerers and sorlocks are quite good for what they do.

Limited spell selection compare to wizards is my biggest issue with sorcerers. It's enough, I think, that they can't copy new spells.
My guess is the dissatisfaction stems from the inevitable and rightful comparison to a wizard where a Sorcerer is worse in nearly every possible measurement. My caster comparison spreadsheet and Sorcerer rework thread go into more details on those areas.

There is probably a perception issue as well ("I fireball my own party" as a wild mage), but I'd wager it's largely down to mechanically deficiency.

Rogerdodger557

2017-08-22, 10:41 AM

I'm also working on a magus half caster (int) which progressed pretty well.

So that's why there isn't the Eldritch Knight/Arcane Archer. I was wondering.

Kobard

2017-08-22, 11:16 AM

Less benefit compared to RAW is not nearly the same as less benefit compared to the other boons. Neither Eldritch Sight nor Eyes of the Rune Keeper are ribbons and giving them is far beyond balanced for the pact of the tome.Having only one finger collectively on either of my hands would still be one finger more than the number of warlocks that I have either seen or heard take those two invocations. But you are also clearly unafraid of looting invocations and Patrons and giving their stuff for free to the Chain and Bladelock at a comparable level.

I hope you don't mind me reorganizing and redacting your post below:

Let's compare:
Tome: you gain two cantrips. These can be a great many options from spare the dying, guidance, thaumaturgy, prestidigitation, thorn whip (less useful now that everything can pull via invocation). Plenty of good options to use, probably more out of combat due to eb.Your reasoning does not make for a compelling arugment, to be honest, as your statement would be true regardless of the number in bold worth of cantrips. "You gain one cantrip. These can be a great many options..." with "plenty of good options to use."

I'm not seeing how tome is weak here. Though I think restoring the 3 cantrips and reducing the overall on the base class is a better choice than what I currently have."I can't see how tome is weak here," said the blindman. The point being that a failure to see does not negate the issue. I am not denying the usefulness of free cantrips from any spell list, but you are unquestionably nerfing an otherwise solid Tomelock by (1) giving one of their cantrips to every warlock, (2) limiting that "freebie" cantrip to the warlock spell list, and (3) giving the Tomelock nothing that compensates for this loss relative to the other boon options. And when all that is said and done, I do not think that two cantrips from any spell list are equal in value to what the Chain and Blade warlocks get at 3rd level in your houserules.

Chain: you gain find familiar. This benefit is not unique to chain as tome gets it as soon as they take book of ancient secrets. The extra familiars are nice, but nothing broken as magic resistance doesn't apply. I add on the ability to avoid the 15g cost and telepathy. Overall it's a small benefit.It's a familiar who can potentially become invisible for scouting, applying touch spells, and that offers greater utilitarian power than the standard ritual familiar. Before your revisions, the Chainlock was already competitive with the Tomelock. If one looks into the three Warlock class guides linked in the GitP guide compilation, Tome is the top in two of the three, with Chain considered the top in the other. But in one of those guides, Chain gets rated as a close second. If we were mathing it up - taking 3 as the top and averaging out the ratings - then Tome would be worth 2.67; Chain would be worth 2.5; and Blade would be worth around 1.67. These guides are a fairly good sign that Tome and Chain were in a relatively good place in comparison with each other.

Blade: However by choosing the armor you'd forgot invocations like ancient secrets so therefore the cost isn't small.I don't think that the Bladelock particularly cares. If you pick the Bladelock, you are choosing to play a gish. It's comparable to how a Valor Bard gets an Extra Attack while the Lord Bard gets Magical Secrets. Sure you are losing the power of Magical Secrets, but you presumably chose the Valor Bard because you want to gish things up.

Raven Queen effectively nullifies the need for chain, I agree. Look at Raven Queen's 1st and 6th level features - they are far better than anything chain has to offer and fills the same niche. ... Those two "patrons" are really poorly designed.I would suggest either getting rid of the Raven Queen and Hexblade patrons or reworking their abilities then. But forcing players to choose the Chainlock if they want to serve the Raven Queen makes me want to print out your entire houserules just so I can burn them. That kinda defeats the whole appeal of the Warlock's mix-and-match build flexibility.

Sariel Vailo

2017-08-22, 11:19 AM

Kryx if you could ellaborate in your homebrew rules where is splintmail.also i wanted to throw my cloak in the ring sorcerers are fun wildmagic equals wild unicorns vs demigorgon. Wizards are fun to but it should be noted stop the hate and mastub8.i mean why play this game if your going to debate power levels its a fun table top roleplaying game not a statistcal nightmare.its 5e not 3.5
So ya know just have fun being you and your characters even the munchkins should have fun veing well munchkins.

FinnS

2017-08-22, 01:52 PM

It's 15 strength, as it is by RAW, not 16. Heavy armor wearers already invest into strength so it's not an extra cost, it's a default cost. Whereas a greatsword wielder investing in dexterity for half plate is using his tertiary ability score at best.
In the other case you have a Dexterity based paladin or Fighter archetype that now has comparable AC with similar stat investment (at least 14 Dex, and Dex damage is significantly lower than strength based damage so the other factors should be fine). Half plate costs less? Sure because it requires less material - the same as leather costs less. If you don't want material/labor based armor costs then you're free to use the super low costs in 4e for example. I considered it.

And Light armor wearers are already invest into Dex.
There really is a reason that Dex based damage is lower than Str based though and a reason why Dex based AC has been limited in 5e compared to previous editions.
Dex is just quite simply the most powerful stat as it has the biggest effect on game mechanics with the most options.
-Most commonly used Save
-Used for hit/damage
-AC
-Initiative
-Melee or Ranged options

And Dex based damage is NOT significantly lower than Str based. It's only lower than GWM damage and that's an Investment of a Feat but so is SS.

Theodoxus

2017-08-22, 02:28 PM

Regarding Sorcerers and why they're hard to 'fix'. From my viewpoint: (Note, this is based on pure classes - mutliclassing is a whole other can of worms, one that sorcerers can really help with.)

Bards and Sorcerers share a casting mechanic: They're full casters using a vancian style of spell slot that know only a tiny subset of all the spells available to them. They follow the same rules regarding swapping out spells every level - they cast exactly the same way.

Sorcerers get 2 mechanics to the base class that differentiates them: sorcery points and metamagic fueled by said sorcery points.

Bards get 4 mechanics to the base class that differentiates them: bardic inspiration, magical secrets, jack of all trades and expertise.

So, not only do bards get more spells known with magical secrets, but they're more party friendly with both inspiration and healing spells; and they're more capable in their specialty (expertise) and outside of it (JoaT).

Bards make a better sorcerer than sorcerer - with or without metamagic. Purely based on spell lists...

Warlocks and Sorcerers share a casting stat. Warlocks get a whole slew of interesting choices in exchange for a much smaller spell slot availability. They offset that with better at will cantrips and a patron that expounds on their differentiation.

Warlocks make a better sorcerer than sorcerer; their short rest recharge works better for spell regeneration than sorcery points ever will. Their invocations provide better metamagic in most cases than sorcery metamagics and customization options with pacts allow nearly any kind of "magic-user" stereotype one can think of, from gish to wizard to incarnate.

Finally, Wizards and Sorcerers share little in common outside of their spell lists - and wizards is arguably stronger. But Wizards school specialization makes them better sorcerers at that specific school... even evocation - arguably the closest school to the sorcerers "expertise", has a better metamagic mechanic for AOE saves with it's ability to create holes in the blasts. Sorcerers provide auto saves... but that means the fireball is still going to do 1/2 damage. Evokers simply say "nah bro, i got u." and simply makes the fireball go around their allies, keeping them unharmed.

4 arcane casters, two of which (Bard and Sorcerer) share the exact same spell progression and share a lot of the same spells, is just too much. When 1/3 of your class options are just mutations of each other, something is off. Nuke the sorcerer, it tries too hard and fails too much.

Wild Sorcerers are fun, sure - but no reason that same mechanic couldn't be applied to a Wild Bard.
Dragon Sorcerers have some nice abilities; but is free always on Mage Armor and an extra hit point (with some sorcery point added resistance) really worth a whole class, one that is easily dismissed and apparently hard to get right?

Moving metamagic to a feat, opening up the option to all is a good idea. Erasing sorcerer at the same time would be good.

If you really want the feel of the wild mage, I still think it'd make a fun addition to Bard. If you want to keep the feel of the dragon mage, maybe tack on the attributes to dragonborn? We already have extra HP on the hill dwarf, so it's not outrageous. Lizardfolk get AC 13+Dex, so that's around too. Dragonborn have meh stats and no darkvision... they could use another benny or two :smallwink:

Kryx

2017-08-22, 02:28 PM

So that's why there isn't the Eldritch Knight/Arcane Archer. I was wondering.
They were under the fighter. It probably worked ok, though not great tbh. The ideas they contain are canabalized into the magus so you'll see their features there.

"I can't see how tome is weak here," said the blindman. The point being that a failure to see does not negate the issue. I am not denying the usefulness of free cantrips from any spell list, but you are unquestionably nerfing an otherwise solid Tomelock by (1) giving one of their cantrips to every warlock, (2) limiting that "freebie" cantrip to the warlock spell list, and (3) giving the Tomelock nothing that compensates for this loss relative to the other boon options. And when all that is said and done, I do not think that two cantrips from any spell list are equal in value to what the Chain and Blade warlocks get at 3rd level in your houserules.
Starting off with an insult... As a point of order: if that's how this conversation will continue then please leave. I purposefully avoid that kind of toxic attitude that permeates this hobby.

Chain and Blade are not equivalent to Tome by RAW. Of course Tome is given nothing in compensation! That's the whole point of a rebalance!

These guides are a fairly good sign that Tome and Chain were in a relatively good place in comparison with each other.
I do not agree at all with the skyblue for chain and blue for Tome, but either way the small buff to chain is nice, but it's largely inconsequential in terms of the balance between them.

I don't think that the Bladelock particularly cares. If you pick the Bladelock, you are choosing to play a gish.
Your complaint is unclear. Are you saying pact of the blade is too strong?

I would suggest either getting rid of the Raven Queen and Hexblade patrons or reworking their abilities then. But forcing players to choose the Chainlock if they want to serve the Raven Queen makes me want to print out your entire houserules just so I can burn them. That kinda defeats the whole appeal of the Warlock's mix-and-match build flexibility.
Hexblade is already gone.
Raven Queen by RAW is essentially a revamped chain. Making the connection transparent isn't an issue imo. The subclass' 1st/3rd and 6th level features are built around the familiar in both RAW and my version. If you have suggested alternatives for those levels let me know.

As I said before I'm considering making the pacts more pronounced as the Reddit post I linked does. I'll explore the balance between them when I do, but the current balance is quite alright imo.

Kryx if you could ellaborate in your homebrew rules where is splintmail.
There is no splint mail in my rules. Scale would be the equivalent.

i mean why play this game if your going to debate power levels its a fun table top roleplaying game not a statistcal nightmare.its 5e not 3.5
The whole point of my houserules is to analyze and adjust the balance of the classes. If that does not interest you then you've come to the wrong thread.

Kryx

2017-08-22, 03:04 PM

Dex is just quite simply the most powerful stat as it has the biggest effect on game mechanics with the most options.
Oy... The whole Strength vs Dexterity argument that has been had many times. Most posts about it are full of misinformation. I will address each section individually:

-Most commonly used Save
No. See https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/17ZeFuwQVvb9DsMseUU8Pb0KxDU7sizhmebp-U7FuzLY/edit?usp=drivesdk con has 168 saves compared to 117 for dex, 90 for wis, 78 for str, 23 for charisma, and 9 for int.
Dex is almost pure damage while strength is mostly "light cc". Dex is probably a better save, but the difference between Dex and Str saves is much smaller than you are implying.

-Used for hit/damage
So is strength and so is int/Wis/Cha for casters and cantrips.

-AC
Absolutely not. Strength based classes have access to better AC via chainmail and plate. At all tiers of play using only armor and ability scores a fighter/paladin has better AC than a rogue or ranger.
At early levels it's significantly better: 14 ac vs 16 which then goes to 15/17 and then around level 5 goes to 16/18 if Dex invests in an ASI and then 17/18 after 2 ASIs for Dex.
Dex heavily loses in terms of AC.

--Initiative
Dex wins

-Melee or Ranged options
Thrown options cover most scenarios where ranged would be required. Maybe 25% of the time (fights with long enough range or aerial enemies) will the difference matter. Even then switching over to a bow to deal 1d8+Dex *2 isn't such great DPR so in those cases a strength based person could probably find something else to do like dodge and taunt, use a healing surge (if using the DMG variant), drink a healing potion, ready a thrown weapon, run over, etc.
Closing the distance (if possible) and doing full DPR next turn would almost certainly be better damage than a melee based Dex character would do from ranged over 2 turns.

Final tally:
Saves: minor Dex lead
AC: major Str lead
Initiative: dex with no content
Ranged: minor Dex lead
Damage (unlisted): moderate Str lead
Skills (unlisted): moderate Dex lead by RAW (not rolling for jump/climb)
Carrying capacity (unlisted): Str with no contest.

Overall those look pretty comparable to me.

The only thing my armor change to half plate does is make Dex able to have 18 ac slightly before Str, but the other tradeoffs are still there. Allowing a Dex based paladin or fighter is totally reasonable imo.
Leather improves Dex by 1 AC at 1st level, so 15 vs 16.
Hide allows for 16 vs chainmail's 16 at 1st level (purposefully), but is beaten around 400 gold and 1500 gold to end at 17 vs plate's 18.

And Dex based damage is NOT significantly lower than Str based. It's only lower than GWM damage and that's an Investment of a Feat but so is SS.
Every DPR measurement I've ever seen shows that strength based fighting styles (greatsword, mauls, greataxes, and polearms) do more damage than anything Dex does. If you want to debate this then please provide extensive math. Otherwise it is very well established that strength does more damage than Dex. If you're talking sword and board then Str wins due to shield master and shove. Only twf has them both at an even playing field.

Moving metamagic to a feat, opening up the option to all is a good idea. Erasing sorcerer at the same time would be good.
As a 3.X sorcerer lover and a guy that has spent hundreds of hours on understanding the balance and making changes to the sorcerer and other classes I must say: I'm inclined to agree.

Even my Sorcerer is somewhat bland and the subclasses could easily fit into the Warlock (while clarifying the wording so that the PC isn't necessarily beholden to the patron, it could be more of a bloodline thing). There is already a fair amount of crossover on the subclasses for each.
Especially with psionics I've considered more and more what role Sorcerer provides and I have struggled to differentiate it from the other arcane casters in a substantial way.

Easy_Lee

2017-08-22, 03:21 PM

strangebloke

2017-08-22, 03:28 PM

Sorcerers are the most unsatisfying class according to a recent enworld poll (http://www.enworld.org/forum/showthread.php?575834-2017-Class-Satisfaction-Survey-Results). It's the only class to have more overall dissatisfaction (50%) than overall satisfaction (47%).
What you suggest, by my wager, would do very little to fix the core satisfaction problems which are readily apparent in that poll. Sorcerers need much more than that.

Hm. Guess that's different from my personal experience.

But Font of Magic and Metamagic are the most fun things that they have in their kit. It's the thing that they have that wizards don't. Blew through your fireballs fighting those zombies? Swap out your scorching rays for a new set of fireballs. Rolled low damage? Roll higher damage! Really need the warlord to fail that save? Apply disadvantage! Need to subtly get the merchant on your side? Subtle Suggestion! It's incredibly flavorful as well, since sorcerers are supposed to be performers and wizards are supposed to be technicians. A sorcerer gets metamagic because all of his magic is essentially invented on the spot. The Wizard gets better breadth, the Sorcerer gets better depth. It's quite nice.

Most of their issues stem from their tiny list of spells known. Everybody acknowledges this. In keeping with tradition, they should have fewer spells known than the wizard, but more spells prepared. Instead they have a third the spells known and a little over half the spells prepared. Because of this, even good spell options become annoying, because fully half of your spells known are generic spells like mage armor and shield and fireball.

They have other issues. They don't get enough sorcerery points. There's not enough sorcererous origins and too many of them are 'x elemental damage type.' They don't get don't get exclusive spells, unlike every other caster in the game nor do they get access to many of the wizard spells that fricking bards do. They lack good options to use with their abilities at times, (good luck with that acid dragon sorcerer) and some metamagic options are way too much better than everything else. (Twin, Quicken, Heighten...)

I think that covers pretty much every complaint I've heard! And you know what? Every single one of those can be fixed by giving them more spells known and adding new content. Draconic sorcerer might be bland. Storm sorcerer might be un-synergistic. But none of these would be bad if sorcerers didn't lack spells known. (I'd also consider adding a metamagic option to change damage types, since so many sorcerer abilities key off of a specific type.)

Meanwhile, 5 of your sorcerer subclasses have mage armor as a class feature. 6 of your subclasses get flight. Most of them get misty escape, or some other spell as a x/long rest ability. These are fine class features i guess, if a tad fiddly, but at some point, I question why you bothered making like 9 of the things. I don't mean to rag on you too much as you've put a tremendous amount of thought into this. I do genuinely like some of the flavorful abilities, but ultimately I just feel like you're trying to fix things that don't need fixing. If I tried to sell this homebrew to my DM, he'd be like... what does this add?

Theodoxus

2017-08-22, 04:09 PM

strangebloke

2017-08-22, 04:13 PM

Kryx

2017-08-22, 04:13 PM

I wonder if sorcerer wouldn't work better as a pseudo short rest caster working purely off of sorcerery points instead of spell slots.

Total number of sorcery points equals combined level of spell slots in current model.
Cast a spell for one sorcery point per spell level, metamagic as usual.
Recover a portion of total sorcery point pool on a short rest, all of it on a long rest.

Something like that would have them actually casting more spells than other full casters in exchange for their very limited selection and spells known.
Spell points already have a point value. Using 1 for 1 is not intended by the system and does not appropriately value the spell levels.
What you describe is basically what I did with Sorcerer before I decided to switch back to slots as points makes it too strong imo.
It's also similar to a warlock and a psion.

The only two areas that differentiate a Sorcerer are either expanded metamagic or expanded bloodline. I chose to expand bloodlines and am relatively happy with the result in terms of balance.

I just feel like you're trying to fix things that don't need fixing
I don't mean to be rude, but your statements show a lack of understanding of the problems the Sorcerer has. These problems have been discussed in hundreds of threads so I don't really want to dive into them again here.
The Sorcerer unquestionably needs fixing. You may personally be satisfied, but things like the survey and the hundreds of threads since 5e came out show that the Sorcerer needs far more than you suggest.
I can understand the attachment to metamagic, but imo it fits much better as feats available to all casters. Without them casters have very little options outside of ASIs and resilient/war caster.

Even with metamagic the Sorcerer would need a greatly expanded spell list, spell recovery, and more spells known. All of which my Sorcerer does. It would probably also need better metamagic in certain cases (compare careful vs wizard evocation class feature).

The issue with sorcerers right now isn't just that they're weak, its that you *have* to take mirror image, mage armor, fireball, dispel magic, etc. because they are the best spells to have. There is simply no room for Aganazzar's scorcher or stinking cloud or what have you, because the opportunity cost is too high, and you need spells that can trigger your class features.
I think spell balance is a large issue in 5e, not just for the Sorcerer. It's more pronounced on the Sorcerer, but that isn't really one of the core issue imo.
Check out my spell balance spreadsheet if you're interested.

Theodoxus

2017-08-22, 04:37 PM

...its that you *have* to take mirror image, mage armor, fireball, dispel magic, etc. because they are the best spells to have.

Eh, this is why I frown on sorcerer being the only arcanist in a party. They're perfectly fine as a 5th wheel - if the party has a fighter, rogue, wizard and cleric, that 5th slot is great for bard, sorcerer, monk, ranger or warlock... but if you're trying to fulfill the controller/utility/aoe role in the party, sorcerer isn't going to cut it, and trying to make it work in that fashion is going to step on toes (primarily wizard, given it's penchant to have 'just the right spell for the occasion, as long as that occasion is tomorrow').

If your party is just a band of murderhobos, or your campaign is only going to 4th or 5th level, sure - a sorcerer doing the heavy lifting for arcane casting will work. But as soon as you're needing phantom steeds and teleportation circles and leomunds everything is awesome spells... your local sorcerer is going to give you the 'wtf man, i'm a sorc, not batman.' response.

Kryx

2017-08-22, 04:59 PM

If your party is just a band of murderhobos, or your campaign is only going to 4th or 5th level, sure - a sorcerer doing the heavy lifting for arcane casting will work. But as soon as you're needing phantom steeds and teleportation circles and leomunds everything is awesome spells... your local sorcerer is going to give you the 'wtf man, i'm a sorc, not batman.' response.
This is true for every arcane caster, not just Sorcerer. You're basically saying that every group needs a Wizard which I think most groups would disagree with. Batman is a cool role for a party, but not required. A party whose arcane caster focused more on group utility and cherry picking spells (Bard), at will damage with some damage/utility (Warlock), or more spells cast with less diversity (My Sorcerer) would function totally fine and even better than a Batman group in some cases.

This actually reminds me of the huge disparity between spells known and the Wizard's effective spells known. Wizards know 44+ spells and can learn all they have gold for. Spells known casters could fulfill more (not all) of the Batman role if that balance was corrected by increasing their spells known to about 35 for example. This would create a problem because they are all automatically prepared (which has stopped me from doing it in the past), but they can't change the spells on a long rest like a Wizard can so I'm not sure it's so bad.

Theodoxus

2017-08-22, 05:15 PM

YMMV (and assuredly does) but from my experience, wizards are the go to arcanist for every group I've been in and run. And I did specify that wizards have 'just the right spell for the occasion, as long as that occasion is tomorrow'.

It's a bit like having a consumable magic item. You don't want to waste it on a minor encounter... a sorcerer feels like it's made up of consumables. If you pick Magic Missile, then you forego Chromatic Orb. If you pick Find Familiar, you forego Detect Magic... each choice matters, and even if you're perfectly capable with Magic Missile, you'll still find encounters were Chromatic Orb would have just been a smidge better - and that will stick in your craw. The closest a wizard ever gets to that dilemma is if they never find the spell in the first place... then it's "what's the opportunity cost of sacrificing one of my 2 free spells known at level up for this specific spell." But that's massively DM and campaign specific...

So I guess the question, at least in this regard, boils down to: Do you want any guaranteed spell but a smaller known list, or 2 guaranteed spells but the potential for all?

Kryx

2017-08-22, 05:20 PM

YMMV (and assuredly does) but from my experience, wizards are the go to arcanist for every group I've been in and run.
It seems we have very different experiences. I run adventure paths so perhaps that is the difference.

What do you think about my idea of expanding the spells known for all spell known classes? Does it bridge the gap a bit, but not too much? It would surely allow for more utility and niche spells.

Theodoxus

2017-08-22, 06:15 PM

When WotC put forth the first UA for sorcs, with expanded lists, I was all for it. When you did the same, I was all for it. If you grant these classes with their signature spells, it definitely frees up the options for players to pick spells that mesh well for their group/play style. If you want to play the fire breathing blaster dragon, and you get all the iconic fire spells "for free", then you can grab either other blasts to complement, or better yet, more utility and party helping spells.

I didn't (and still don't) understand why the devs gave nearly every class a list of iconic niche spells. Every Cleric domain, Land Druid terrain, Paladin Oath, Warlock Patron (though admittedly not "free")... just Bards and Sorcerers got the shaft (wizards too, kinda, but since they have the potential to get any spell... though that makes clerics and druids a little 0.o when you think about any list that just grants spells from their own spell lists, but I digress...)

Smallest number of spells known, no iconic free spells? And metamagic was supposed to fill the gap? Doesn't really work for me...

strangebloke

2017-08-22, 06:28 PM

I don't mean to be rude, but your statements show a lack of understanding of the problems the Sorcerer has. These problems have been discussed in hundreds of threads so I don't really want to dive into them again here.

The Sorcerer unquestionably needs fixing. You may personally be satisfied, but things like the survey and the hundreds of threads since 5e came out show that the Sorcerer needs far more than you suggest.

Did you read my post? What does the sorcerer need that I missed? Where did I say that the sorcerer did not need some help? Let's compare what you said to what I said.

Even with metamagic the Sorcerer would need a greatly expanded spell list,

They don't get don't get exclusive spells, unlike every other caster in the game nor do they get access to many of the wizard spells that fricking bards do

spell recovery,

They don't get enough sorcery points.
Not quite the same thing, I realize, but it is connected. Sorcerers run out of resources faster than their bookish cousins.

and more spells known.

Most of their issues stem from their tiny list of spells known.

It would probably also need better metamagic in certain cases (compare careful vs wizard evocation class feature).
I didn't specifically address this, except to say that metamagic are in no wise created equally. Since we're talking about buffing the sorcerer, I would have assumed that it was clear I was saying that some metamagic needs help. Sorry I didn't clarify.

My criticism of your sorcerer is not that it is unbalanced. My criticism is that it is fiddly, has too many similar subclasses, and in general is a way more invasive 'fix' than necessary. Its an impressive body of work in its own right, but if I want a sorcerer fix, I want something that does just that, changing the text as little as possible.

Sindeloke

2017-08-22, 08:38 PM

I can understand the attachment to metamagic, but imo it fits much better as feats available to all casters. Without them casters have very little options outside of ASIs and resilient/war caster.

Only because feat balance is trash and so many of them are combat focused (imo none of them should be). Casters can still take Lucky, Insipiring Leader, Alert, Tough, Actor, that dumb trapfinding one....

It's martial characters who currently have limited feat choices, because GWM/PAM are basically feat taxes for damage-focused martials. The opportunity cost of taking an interesting feat is too high. Casters, on the other hand, are free to pop a couple ASIs and then take whatever they like without any fear of letting down their team. Making metamagic into feats basically removes that advantage. Which is I guess a sort of balancing move, but I'd vastly rather go the other way.

strangebloke

2017-08-22, 11:21 PM

Only because feat balance is trash and so many of them are combat focused (imo none of them should be). Casters can still take Lucky, Insipiring Leader, Alert, Tough, Actor, that dumb trapfinding one....

It's martial characters who currently have limited feat choices, because GWM/PAM are basically feat taxes for damage-focused martials. The opportunity cost of taking an interesting feat is too high. Casters, on the other hand, are free to pop a couple ASIs and then take whatever they like without any fear of letting down their team. Making metamagic into feats basically removes that advantage. Which is I guess a sort of balancing move, but I'd vastly rather go the other way.

If you go through his rules, he does a fair bit to balance the feats.

I am not sure I like all of it. In particular I like half feats, although I'm admittedly ignorant of balance implications there. In general though, downgrading GWM/PAM and Lucky is a good thing.

FinnS

2017-08-23, 12:26 AM

If you go through his rules, he does a fair bit to balance the feats.

I am not sure I like all of it. In particular I like half feats, although I'm admittedly ignorant of balance implications there. In general though, downgrading GWM/PAM and Lucky is a good thing.

Ok great, so the Martial classes have been balanced out to each other. The weaker ones are better now and the more powerful ones are nerfed.
So now, even the best Martial classes are even further behind the Casters...awesome!
Obviously the same was done for Casters to even them out as well right?
XXX wrong answer, not only were the Casters not balanced in the same way the Martials were but all casters are actually given the option (metamagic) to even further increase the gap on the Martial classes while at the same time take the only thing the Sorcerer had that even allowed them to stay competitive with the other Casters.

Listen, I'm all for Balancing but this aint it.

Kryx

2017-08-23, 01:06 AM

My criticism of your sorcerer is not that it is unbalanced. My criticism is that it is fiddly, has too many similar subclasses, and in general is a way more invasive 'fix' than necessary. Its an impressive body of work in its own right, but if I want a sorcerer fix, I want something that does just that, changing the text as little as possible.
Fiddly is not the same as verbose. Fiddly implies unwieldy. What you meant was that you want a simple fix and my fix is an overhaul. As I said my choices aren't everyone's choices.

So now, even the best Martial classes are even further behind the Casters...awesome!
I addressed this issue above. My choices barely touch that divide while greatly improving the martial internal imbalance.

While casters do get metamagic at the cost of feats they also have spells that have more balanced damage and spells that have had their too harsh save or suck features blunted. Compared to RAW the spell balances definitely lessen the caster-martial divide.

Obviously the same was done for Casters to even them out as well right?
Balancing casters isn't as easy as balancing martials. That said I made quite a large spreadsheet on the classes, made comparisons, and made several adjustments. It's not perfect, but 5e's structure makes perfect caster internal balance very difficult. If you have suggestions for how to improve caster internal balance let me know.

Listen, I'm all for Balancing but this aint it.
If you'd like to contribute ideas to change then please do. If you're just here to argue about how bad it is then there doesn't seem to be much point, does there?

There are several blogs and articles on internal balance (between martials in this case) and external balance (role vs role, so martials vs casters in this case). Internal balance is far more important than external balance. By keeping things like -5/+10, Sharpshooter, PAM's bonus attack the results are negligible on external balance while greatly decreasing internal balance. If you think there is a way to solve that then by all means do the math and make your suggestions. I have played with the numbers hundreds of times and have concluded that features like -5/+10, the ability to ignore cover, and PAM's bonus attack are impossible to balance across multiple classes. Possibly you'd draw different conclusions with your numbers, but if you don't provide numbers them all we have is your opinion. Everyone has an opinion on balance, but those opinions aren't very valuable unless substantiated with numbers.

FinnS

2017-08-23, 02:18 AM

Fiddly is not the same as verbose. Fiddly implies unwieldy. What you meant was that you want a simple fix and my fix is an overhaul. As I said my choices aren't everyone's choices.

Man, you really are the martial-caster divide crusader... I addressed this issue above. My choices barely touch that divide while greatly improving the martial internal imbalance.

While casters do get metamagic at the cost of feats they also have spells that have more balanced damage and spells that have had their too harsh save or suck features blunted. Compared to RAW the spell balances definitely lessen the caster-martial divide.

Balancing casters isn't as easy as balancing martials. That said I made quite a large spreadsheet on the classes, made comparisons, and made several adjustments. It's not perfect, but 5e's structure makes perfect caster internal balance very difficult. If you have suggestions for how to improve caster internal balance let me know.

If you'd like to contribute ideas to change then please do. If you're just here to argue about how bad it is then there doesn't seem to be much point, does there?

I've said it like a 100 times now around here...you can't balance with math. It doesn't work. I've been playing and mostly DMing from Basic through to 5E coming up on 34 years now and I'm telling you that if you can't think outside the box to see how situations can be manipulated for good or bad in spite of the math, then don't bother trying to do it with math alone.

You want suggestions, ok then...

Casters
There is only two ways in my mind to balance Casters and Martials.
You tax their resources by either doing as the DMG suggests and produce 6-8 encounters per long rest
OR
If you prefer not to be so combat heavy in a day (and most don't) use a Spell Point system that only replenishes so many on a long rest so that they can blow their wad if they want but they do so knowing they won't be at full strength again for days afterwards.

Two-weapon Fighting
First off, do what I did almost from day 1 of 5E, dump the rule that says you can only use you off-hand attack as part of the Attack option with your main hand. Let the players use that Bonus off-hand attack anytime they want regardless of what they did on their Action. So while TWFing still doesn't equal the pure damage of the top STR options, it gives them crazy versatility and mobility options.
If that's not enough to satisfy the damage difference for you or your players, then instead of simply giving them a second off-hand attack, you give TWF a rake when you hit with both weapons on the same target adding a damage die. d8 with TWF feat, d6 without.
You stay away from flat just giving TWF another free attack because it scales far too quickly through +Abil Mod, Hex/Hunter's Mark, weapon procs, Hexblade curse and other outside buffs.
If you don't want to add Rake damage but continue to still want more than just the added versatility from the first part, then have hitting with both weapons cause the next attack against that target before its turn to be made with Advantage. Representing that you have temporarily knocked their defenses down.

Kobard

2017-08-23, 02:30 AM

Chain and Blade are not equivalent to Tome by RAW. Of course Tome is given nothing in compensation! That's the whole point of a rebalance!Ideally a rebalance should aim for balance, but I think that your readjustments miserably failed the Tomelock in that regard. I don't think that you balanced the boons.

Your complaint is unclear. Are you saying pact of the blade is too strong?It's not a complaint. It's noting how appealing to Book of Ancient Secrets as a sacrifice for a Bladelock is not compelling since the Bladelock player came to play a gish. It's not as big of a sacrifice IMO as you argue.

Raven Queen by RAW is essentially a revamped chain. Making the connection transparent isn't an issue imo. The subclass' 1st/3rd and 6th level features are built around the familiar in both RAW and my version. If you have suggested alternatives for those levels let me know.I would suggest just killing the Raven Queen patron as you did the Hexblade. IMHO, you are not making the connection transparent, you are unnecessarily enforcing one that need not be there nor should be there. Any patron option that forces a particular boon is as much of a critical fail as the original Hexblade and Raven Queen designs. It slaps the pick a patron and then pick a boon design principle of the warlock in the face.

As a warning, since you seemed to appreciate my paragraph on the tinkerer: the tinkerer IME often becomes convinced and set in their ways that they are never wrong, the faults they see exist, and their changes (no matter how many they have made to the same ruling previously) are ideal. The tinkerer comes with many pitfalls. Be careful that you don't set your dwelling place among the pits.

Kryx

2017-08-24, 06:23 AM

you can't balance with math. It doesn't work.
I believe you have come to the wrong thread then as my rules are very influenced by the math of the game.
D&D is and has been based on math for a very long time. 5e's relatively decent balance shows that the designers considered the math of the game. Making adjustments without considering the math of the game is like walking blindly. The balance of many games (LoL, Dota, WoW, etc) is data driven. 5e, where possible, should also be data driven.
Zman, myself, and several other people have had good success with a data driven method.

There is only two ways in my mind to balance Casters and Martials.
You tax their resources by either doing as the DMG suggests and produce 6-8 encounters per long rest
The point of our discussion was about feats. Your complaint was that the removal of -5/+10 makes martials not competitive with casters. This is a en entirely different discussion. This area is well established and should be adhered to, but it's rather unrelated to the claim that the removal of -5/+10 greatly hurts the martial-caster divide.

Ideally a rebalance should aim for balance, but I think that your readjustments miserably failed the Tomelock in that regard. I don't think that you balanced the boons.
I don't quite agree as my rebalance has little impact on Tome vs Chain, but I've adjusted Tome back to 3 cantrips as RAW and I'll work on my pact expansion (killing Raven Queen) and then perhaps it'll be easier to compare whole pacts.

As a warning, since you seemed to appreciate my paragraph on the tinkerer: the tinkerer IME often becomes convinced and set in their ways that they are never wrong, the faults they see exist, and their changes (no matter how many they have made to the same ruling previously) are ideal. The tinkerer comes with many pitfalls. Be careful that you don't set your dwelling place among the pits.
I feel like I'm having my fortune read. :P
Though I think your appraisal is rather unfair. You can see in this thread, my Sorcerer thread, my Monk thread, my threads on Roll20 for the Shaped character sheet, etc. I have been rather willing to make changes based on feedback.

Zman

2017-08-24, 10:52 AM

I've said it like a 100 times now around here...you can't balance with math. It doesn't work. I've been playing and mostly DMing from Basic through to 5E coming up on 34 years now and I'm telling you that if you can't think outside the box to see how situations can be manipulated for good or bad in spite of the math, then don't bother trying to do it with math alone.

You want suggestions, ok then...

Casters
There is only two ways in my mind to balance Casters and Martials.
You tax their resources by either doing as the DMG suggests and produce 6-8 encounters per long rest
OR
If you prefer not to be so combat heavy in a day (and most don't) use a Spell Point system that only replenishes so many on a long rest so that they can blow their wad if they want but they do so knowing they won't be at full strength again for days afterwards.

Two-weapon Fighting
First off, do what I did almost from day 1 of 5E, dump the rule that says you can only use you off-hand attack as part of the Attack option with your main hand. Let the players use that Bonus off-hand attack anytime they want regardless of what they did on their Action. So while TWFing still doesn't equal the pure damage of the top STR options, it gives them crazy versatility and mobility options.
If that's not enough to satisfy the damage difference for you or your players, then instead of simply giving them a second off-hand attack, you give TWF a rake when you hit with both weapons on the same target adding a damage die. d8 with TWF feat, d6 without.
You stay away from flat just giving TWF another free attack because it scales far too quickly through +Abil Mod, Hex/Hunter's Mark, weapon procs, Hexblade curse and other outside buffs.
If you don't want to add Rake damage but continue to still want more than just the added versatility from the first part, then have hitting with both weapons cause the next attack against that target before its turn to be made with Advantage. Representing that you have temporarily knocked their defenses down.

You can't balance with math alone, but math can be used as a tool for assessing balance. It is not the be all or end all, but it can be a start. For example, when assessing the mechanic balance of a feat like Great Weapon Master, and in particular its -5/+10 ability, we can assess the impact that will have against expected AC ranges and how it interacts with advantage/disadvanatage etc, and we can determine that it has an outsized impact on damage and capabilities that cause an imbalance among martials. Same with Sharpshooter or Polearm Master, because we can compare those to another primary damage feat like Savage Attack or to a simple +2 Strength.

Math alone isn't the answer, but you cannot discount it as a valuable tool.

Martials vs Casters
I agree with what you are saying, enforcing resource taxes according to the "expected" 6-8 encounters goes a long way towards balance and personally I wish Wizards would have balanced it around 3-4 per day instead. There are other ways to address this as well ie making short rests more accessable to the short rest classes. If you're running fewer encounter per day using a long rest variant that slows down rest regain works as well.

TWF
Interesting suggestion, but what about say Rogues who just dodge and still attack every round with their "off hand".
Rake is definitely a viable alternative. I opted for a second offhand attack at 8th level, but acknowledge there are concerns you mentioned about stacking damage for multiple attacks, but felt it was the simplist fix for TWF, only affects those with extra attack already, and does have the bonus action opportunity cost which goes very far in balancing things like Hex/Hunter's Mark. Ironically, a Paladins Improved Smite was more problematic damage wise for me and balance... but I focus more on levels 1-10 with my E10, and found the niche case in paladin, Hex, Hunter's Mark offset sufficiently by the bonus action opportunity cost.

FinnS

2017-08-24, 11:46 AM

I believe you have come to the wrong thread then

Nope, OP asked for opinions on your house rules so I'm giving mine.

as my rules are very influenced by the math of the game.
D&D is and has been based on math for a very long time. 5e's relatively decent balance shows that the designers considered the math of the game. Making adjustments without considering the math of the game is like walking blindly. The balance of many games (LoL, Dota, WoW, etc) is data driven. 5e, where possible, should also be data driven.
Zman, myself, and several other people have had good success with a data driven method.

Did I say to ignore the math all together? No, I did not.
I SAID to not base balancing on ONLY the math.
The math is the just base and of course D&D considers the math and I can see why you put so much faith in it with 5e as the math does actually mean more than it did in previous editions.
Bounded accuracy makes the numbers mean more. A +1 in 3.5 was almost meaningless when you had a 15th level fighter with a +25 or more to hit. That +1 is worth a meager +4%. Compare that to a level 15 fighter in 5e whose to hit is closer to +13ish and that +1 now represents a 7.7% upgrade, almost double that of the 3.5 counterpart.
3.5 skills were even worse routinely getting into the high +30's and beyond making that +1 even more meaningless.

I get it, believe me I do but balancing the math is just that. You have to consider the math and then look beyond it to actually balance the game.
I played WOW for almost 6 years and I made a career out of defying the math. When I showed up to a Raid audition for a high end guild looking for a DPS warrior/offtank with my 2H Fury Warrior wearing a couple of pieces of PvP gear I was met with sarcasm and even open laughter from a couple of players.
By the time we were 3 bosses in there were only 2 people laughing, me and the Officer who sponsored me for the tryout as I was not only leading the Raid in DPS, I had a sizable lead. So much so that when I had to switch to off-tank on the 4th Boss, I was still leading afterwards.
All the "math guys" had to say was...that shouldn't be possible.

So again I say, what the math says and what actually happens at the table/in play are rarely the same.
Hell I even applaud you and others like you that do well in trying to balance the math, it's a good start but the sooner you realise it's only the start, the better off you will be.

The point of our discussion was about feats. Your complaint was that the removal of -5/+10 makes martials not competitive with casters. This is a en entirely different discussion. This area is well established and should be adhered to, but it's rather unrelated to the claim that the removal of -5/+10 greatly hurts the martial-caster divide.

No it's not. You have attempted to balance all the Martial classes by bringing them all more in line with each other. By definition that means boosting some while reducing others. That's called normalization and it was a very, very bad word in WOW.
In doing so you are increasing the gap to the casters by subtraction.
You then further compound the issue by giving all casters access to meta-magic which also serves to make Sorcerer's next to useless as they were already barely holding on to their place in the caster hierarchy by their boot straps because of their being the only ones with access to meta-magic.

You then call all this balance?
It's really not, sorry.

PhantomSoul

2017-08-24, 12:28 PM

All the "math guys" had to say was...that shouldn't be possible.

So again I say, what the math says and what actually happens at the table/in play are rarely the same.
Hell I even applaud you and others like you that do well in trying to balance the math, it's a good start but the sooner you realise it's only the start, the better off you will be.

Yeah, it's a start. And part of that is (a) thinking and testing, but also (b) not running math only for one context and making inferences only from that. That latter is often the problem -- the people who said something "shouldn't be possible" probably made both mistakes (though usually people don't actually do the math), but notably they probably inferred from one context of math and treated it as though that were always true. It isn't. "Responsible use" of math involves testing out how different contexts affect things (advantage, disadvantage, difference ACs, different numbers of creatures, different party compositions, different HP levels for creatures, etc.). Sure, you can't test everything just with math, but it the problems you seem to be assuming are from doing incomplete checks -- and from a look at Kryx's threads/discussions, it definitely seems like a big step in the right direction because multiple contexts or factors are considered. And yeah, you should think of other game aspects that math can't model well or at all (ex. RP aspects), just like you should consider sub-optimal and creative play (some amount of that can be modeled fairly easily, less so for casters though since the number of options often makes it less feasible to test everything) and you should be careful to interpret reasonably (often the problem is with this, especially when people are just looking to validate a foregone conclusion, in which case they'll often pick the subset of results or contexts that make them feel right).

A next step? Testing. Trying things out. Seeing if they get the 'feel' you want, and then you can use the actual math to inform how you adapt to those feelings. Like you're saying, the math is a tool -- and it's a damn good one, if you use it right. But you've often made it seem like "it's just math, you can't balance with [only] math" is an argument. It isn't really an argument that the balance is necessarily wrong -- instead, say what the math isn't capturing (feel, contexts, other options and interactions, etc.).

No it's not. You have attempted to balance all the Martial classes by bringing them all more in line with each other. By definition that means boosting some while reducing others. That's called normalization and it was a very, very bad word in WOW.

It doesn't really matter whether it was a bad word in WOW; swearing is a silly taboo anyway! ;) [Half-]Jokes aside, your definition is wrong: it's not by definition boosting some while reducing others -- by definition, it's simply reducing or eliminating the overall gaps (I say overall because you can balance for niches, where A is better in context X, but B is better in context Y). Reducing the gap between two things can be done by boosting one, by removing from the other, or more commonly by some combination of the two.

You then call all this balance?
It's really not, sorry.

Meh, it's a step towards balance, not the end point. If martials are more in line with each other and casters are more in line with each other, then it becomes a bit easier usually to balance martials and casters (not that it's easy, but complaining that everything isn't balanced when the goal is just one step of that is unfair).

FinnS

2017-08-24, 12:28 PM

You can't balance with math alone, but math can be used as a tool for assessing balance. It is not the be all or end all, but it can be a start. For example, when assessing the mechanic balance of a feat like Great Weapon Master, and in particular its -5/+10 ability, we can assess the impact that will have against expected AC ranges and how it interacts with advantage/disadvanatage etc, and we can determine that it has an outsized impact on damage and capabilities that cause an imbalance among martials. Same with Sharpshooter or Polearm Master, because we can compare those to another primary damage feat like Savage Attack or to a simple +2 Strength.

Math alone isn't the answer, but you cannot discount it as a valuable tool.

Agreed and if I implied that the math is totally useless or shouldn't be factored in at all, it was not my intention. I think I clarified any misconception of that in the post above this one.
See, for me and my table, there's what the math says should be balanced and then there's what feels balanced at the table.
In the case of GWF's -5/+10, we have adopted the -prof/+2xprof.
So while according to the math, this is still unbalanced. At the table, it definitely feels much more balanced, especially at the lower to mid levels where you no longer have one GWF dominating combat and trivializing encounters.

Martials vs Casters
I agree with what you are saying, enforcing resource taxes according to the "expected" 6-8 encounters goes a long way towards balance and personally I wish Wizards would have balanced it around 3-4 per day instead. There are other ways to address this as well ie making short rests more accessable to the short rest classes. If you're running fewer encounter per day using a long rest variant that slows down rest regain works as well.

Yeah, unfortunately this is not something that can be quick fixed and even just a perceived nerf will have the caster community raging beyond what any Barbarian is capable of heh

TWF
Interesting suggestion, but what about say Rogues who just dodge and still attack every round with their "off hand".
Rake is definitely a viable alternative. I opted for a second offhand attack at 8th level, but acknowledge there are concerns you mentioned about stacking damage for multiple attacks, but felt it was the simplist fix for TWF, only affects those with extra attack already, and does have the bonus action opportunity cost which goes very far in balancing things like Hex/Hunter's Mark. Ironically, a Paladins Improved Smite was more problematic damage wise for me and balance... but I focus more on levels 1-10 with my E10, and found the niche case in paladin, Hex, Hunter's Mark offset sufficiently by the bonus action opportunity cost.

Yeah, anything that makes crit fishing Pally's do even more damage is going to be an issue period.
You ask about Rogues that will just dodge and attack with off-hand. I mean really, so what?
They're still putting themselves at greater risk by remaining by the front line even if they are dodging than if they use their main attack, disengage with their cunning and then run out, right?
It's about giving TWF's versatility and more playstyle freedom to offset less damage.
That combined with the aforementioned Power Attack scaling makes it feel balanced at the table and at the end of the day, that IS what you really want.
The Rake thing is just something I held in my back pocket in case there were any further complaints but there weren't.
I'll tell you right not that if I went to my players and said...Hey I'm reverting the TWF rule back to that you can only use your off-hand bonus attack when you attack with your main hand but I'm giving you a 2nd off-hand attack, they will tell me to stick it where the sun don't shine lol

I'm telling ya, give it a try and see how it goes. You won't be disappointed and neither will they once they start exploring all the options it affords them.

Kryx

2017-08-24, 12:43 PM

No it's not. You have attempted to balance all the Martial classes by bringing them all more in line with each other. By definition that means boosting some while reducing others...
In doing so you are increasing the gap to the casters by subtraction.
I really question if you've ever even looked at my DPR charts and seen the difference between RAW and my rules. Your words lead me to believe that you haven't.

You then further compound the issue by giving all casters access to meta-magic
Casters have nearly 0 feat options beyond ASIs and War Caster/Resilient. I purposefully increased their options, but I'd argue metamagic is comparable to the strength of those other feats. It doesn't meaningfully change the caster-martial divide.

Again through my spell balance (https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1N4QC6EmXE0avgk8jK1aubJcaFoZDYw8b_DuPHh8aBTc/edit#gid=639488216) I have balanced many spells which would likely have a larger negative impact on caster power than metamagic would have in the positive.

which also serves to make Sorcerer's next to useless
I, like many, was not satisfied that a Sorcerer's main schtick was metamagic so I removed it from the class. If you're happy with metamagic then keep it!

"next to useless" again makes me question if you've even looked at my rules closely. I have a significant amount of comparisons via a spreadsheet and significantly expanded spell recovery and the subclasses to make up for the removal of metamagic.

Meh, it's a step towards balance, not the end point. If martials are more in line with each other and casters are more in line with each other, then it becomes a bit easier usually to balance martials and casters (not that it's easy, but complaining that everything isn't balanced when the goal is just one step of that is unfair).
Exactly. My rules will never be perfect, but by my measures they bring far better internal balance for martials and somewhat better internal balance for casters. The gap between those two groups would require a larger rework than I have taken on.

In my experience the caster-martial divide is largely negligible when the DM uses the adventuring day model and some spells are nerfed. Every class has a role to play and I think martials play their roles quite well.

Ravinsild

2017-08-24, 12:49 PM

Casters have nearly 0 feat options beyond ASIs and War Caster/Resilient. .

Not to be nitpicky or anything but isn't Spell Sniper a feat? I know it's pretty good, at least for Warlocks, right?

Kryx

2017-08-24, 01:02 PM

Not to be nitpicky or anything but isn't Spell Sniper a feat? I know it's pretty good, at least for Warlocks, right?
For Warlocks: yes
For every other caster: no

There are very few spells with attack rolls in the game, most of which aren't premier options.

Ravinsild

2017-08-24, 01:09 PM

For Warlocks: yes
For every other caster: no

There are very few spells with attack rolls in the game, most of which aren't premier options.

Ah ok. I'm guessing it's only good for Warlock because EB is the best cantrip in the game and they're, for all intents and purposes, longbow users but with magic.

FinnS

2017-08-24, 01:23 PM

I really question if you've ever even looked at my DPR charts and see the difference between RAW and my rules. Your words lead me to believe that you haven't.

I have and I understand them.
My point is they only tell a part of the picture. I guarantee you I could make up a character based on what you have listed as the lowest DPR values for race, class and weapon style and turn him into an absolute DPR monster that defies your charts.
Again, I applaud your efforts to balance the math, I'm just saying don't just stop there and then call it balanced. You're not done yet.

Casters have nearly 0 feat options beyond ASIs and War Caster/Resilient. I purposefully increased their options, but I'd argue metamagic is comparable to the strength of those other feats. It doesn't meaningfully change the caster-martial divide.

Because they don't need them, they have these things called spells that can do just about anything. That's where their options come from. A high level Wizard given a little prep time can accomplish and overcome pretty much anything without having taken a single Feat.
I mean the reality is that after the Wizard takes Warcaster, he's best served by simply pumping all his remaining ASI's into INT and CON anyway.

Again through my spell balance (https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1N4QC6EmXE0avgk8jK1aubJcaFoZDYw8b_DuPHh8aBTc/edit#gid=639488216) I have balanced many spells which would likely have a larger negative impact on caster power than metamagic would have in the positive.

I, like many, was not satisfied that a Sorcerer's main schtick was metamagic so I removed it from the class. If you're happy with metamagic then keep it!

"next to useless" again makes me question if you've even looked at my rules closely. I have a significant amount of comparisons via a spreadsheet and significantly expanded spell recovery and the subclasses to make up for the removal of metamagic.

No, I saw them. I don't really like them on their face because I perceive too many issues coming up at the table.
To be fair, I would at least reserve final judgement until I heard some extensive feedback from players using them at the table.

Exactly. My rules will never be perfect, but by my measures they bring far better internal balance for martials and somewhat better internal balance for casters. The gap between those two groups would require a larger rework than I have taken on.

Yes, I understand that but IMO, your rules, which as you said yourself, attempt to balance Martials with Martials and Casters with Casters actually serves to exasperate that gap.
Just my opinion and maybe I'm wrong but my well over 30 years of DMing has this very loud voice in the back of my head telling me I'm not.

In my experience the caster-martial divide is largely negligible when the DM uses the adventuring day model and some spells are nerfed. Every class has a role to play and I think martials play their roles quite well.

Well that depends on your interpretation of those Encounter guidelines.
If you are interpreting 4-6 per day as 4-6 combats then yes that would serve to keep martials more on par but in my experience that is an unreasonable number of combats.
4-6 encounters including 2-3 combat and 2-3 non-combat is much more reasonable and much. much more common.

Easy_Lee

2017-08-24, 01:42 PM

Balancing purely with math doesn't always work. Let me give two practical examples.

In theory, the blade pact is broken because it can turn things like the ice devil spear into pact weapons. In practice, how many DMs will let the player do that?

In theory, two weapon fighting is worse than polearm mastery in every way for a strength based fighter. In practice, that will often be the case, but the two weapon fighter can use a vast array of weapons with his features compared to the polearm master. If the TWF player finds a magical pair of scimitars but the polearm matter doesn't find a magical polearm, then the two weapon fighter will be better. This is especially relevant in AL, and isn't always the result of preferential / bad DMing.

That's why I say balancing with math alone is not always a valid approach.

PhantomSoul

2017-08-24, 01:52 PM

Kryx

2017-08-24, 02:22 PM

Well that depends on your interpretation of those Encounter guidelines.
If you are interpreting 4-6 per day as 4-6 combats then yes that would serve to keep martials more on par but in my experience that is an unreasonable number of combats.
4-6 encounters including 2-3 combat and 2-3 non-combat is much more reasonable and much. much more common.
If you disagree with the suggested adventuring day feel free to adjust your rest cycles as the easiest way to adapt, but that isn't really related to my houserules beyond that I would encourage you to maintain the adventuring day balance.

In theory, the blade pact is broken because it can turn things like the ice devil spear into pact weapons.
No it can't. This has been clarified since the beginning of 5e:
https://twitter.com/AntarianRanger/status/519529970607980544
https://twitter.com/AntarianRanger/status/519530062291288065
https://twitter.com/AntarianRanger/status/519530356685283328

I would say that they could use a maul or a greatsword, but there's no "storm giant greatsword" to choose from in the game.
The feature specifically points you toward Chapter 5, indicating that the warlock chooses from the weapons normally available.
Additionally, those are both intended for larger creatures (& are unwieldy for a normal PC) & have no stats of their own

Please.. don't.

In theory, two weapon fighting is worse than polearm mastery in every way for a strength based fighter. In practice, that will often be the case, but the two weapon fighter can use a vast array of weapons with his features compared to the polearm master. If the TWF player finds a magical pair of scimitars but the polearm matter doesn't find a magical polearm, then the two weapon fighter will be better. This is especially relevant in AL, and isn't always the result of preferential / bad DMing.
System balance isn't determined by what a GM hands out. Even then you'd need significantly strong longswords to make RAW TWF worth it.

Easy_Lee

2017-08-24, 02:57 PM

System balance isn't determined by what a GM hands out. Even then you'd need significantly strong longswords to make RAW TWF worth it.

If you define system balance to mean the math behind the system, then sure. Real play has no bearing on that. But systematically, the number of actions a druid or cleric might take out-numbers those that a rogue might take, given spells and related. One would think that would make clerics and druids better than rogues. But in fact, this didn't stop players from being more satisfied with the rogue than either druid or cleric in that EN World poll.

Why? Well, player satisfaction is not the same as system balance / math. That much, I think, is self-evident. But if that's the case, then why is system balance such a huge concern?

I draw on my experiences with World of Warcraft. Starting with the second expansion, the developers made it a top priority to balance all of the classes within each role those classes could fill. And the second expansion is the exact point when, for the first time in that game's history, its subscription numbers dropped. And they never stopped dropping.

I don't think that's a coincidence.

Balance is a fine goal, but it has a larger impact on forum discussions than it does on player enjoyment.

Kryx

2017-08-24, 03:23 PM

Why? Well, player satisfaction is not the same as system balance / math. That much, I think, is self-evident. But if that's the case, then why is system balance such a huge concern?
System imbalance leads to player dissatisfaction. Conversely system balance can possibly lead to player satisfaction. Satisfaction is a perception based factor and anything perception based is widley susceptible to human input. This is why I favor math over opinions based on human perception.

Satisfaction is the goal and I believe balance is part of that. Example: Some of my favorite classes in D&D are Sorcerer and Monk, but I would be disatisfied with playing them in 5e not only due to them being underpowered, but also because their mechanics are rather one-dimensional. The same was true in 3.X actually. With those issues resolved I would have a much happier time playing either class.

You can see this same sentiment on your Sorcerer thread and the ENWorld threads on this issue: People clearly identify that the balance of the Sorcerer is the main factor for their response as it's by far the most commonly discussed item.

I draw on my experiences with World of Warcraft. Starting with the second expansion, the developers made it a top priority to balance all of the classes within each role those classes could fill. And the second expansion is the exact point when, for the first time in that game's history, its subscription numbers dropped. And they never stopped dropping.

I don't think that's a coincidence.
That is a huge leap to causation. There are hundreds of reasons for MMOs falling off that range from lack of content, aging player base, balance issues, lack of player engagement, lack of community, community trust, other games, age of the game, and a myriad of other issues.

I could make an equally false claim, even with data: TI6 set a record for the most amount of heroes played in Dota 2 "The Internation" events. Heroes played = heroes are more balanced so therefore worth picking. The Dota 2 active player numbers steadily grew from TI5 (August 2015) where to TI6 (August 2016) (http://steamcharts.com/app/570#All). TI5 had 104 heroes played (https://www.dotabuff.com/esports/leagues/2733/heroes) while TI6 had 110 heroes played (https://www.dotabuff.com/esports/leagues/4664/heroes). So this is proof, right? No, it's nonsense. TI4 had 105 heroes played (https://www.dotabuff.com/esports/leagues/600/heroes), more than TI5, but the active user amount was lower. TI7 had 112 heroes played (https://www.dotabuff.com/esports/leagues/5401/heroes), more than TI6, but the active user amount was lower.

Your conclusion that balance (even if it did precisely conicide with the slip) is responsible for the slow decline of WoW is rather absurd without any data to back it up.

Easy_Lee

2017-08-24, 04:49 PM

System imbalance leads to player dissatisfaction. Conversely system balance can possibly lead to player satisfaction. Satisfaction is a perception based factor and anything perception based is widley susceptible to human input. This is why I favor math over opinions based on human perception.

Satisfaction is the goal and I believe balance is part of that.

...

You can see this same sentiment on your Sorcerer thread and the ENWorld threads on this issue: People clearly identify that the balance of the Sorcerer is the main factor for their response as it's by far the most commonly discussed item.

...

Your conclusion that balance (even if it did precisely conicide with the slip) is responsible for the slow decline of WoW is rather absurd without any data to back it up.

Wanted to address these specific points. Let me make myself more clear.

I think perceived imbalance, not mathematical imbalance, is a source of dissatisfaction. My source of that is anecdotal, a combination of threads here and actual play. TWF is the easiest mechanic with which to demonstrate imbalance in 5e. And yet I've seen more than a few players play TWF fighters or rangers and be happy about it. If they were suffering for their choice, they either didn't notice or didn't care.

I contrast that with the power attack feats. SS and GWM very obviously give these weapon types an advantage. That's a perceived imbalance, something one weapon gets that another doesn't. Sure enough, I've seen these at tables a lot. And I've seen discussions of these things more often than discussions about TWF imbalance, at least at that table.

Players want to be able to power attack with a rapier, dagger, fist, etc. They see it as not fair that they can't. The times I've seen it at the table, I don't think it mattered how often they would actually get to power attack, or how much damage it would add. What mattered was that they couldn't do it.

Is that more clear?

On to the second point: I don't think balance was the reason for WoW's decline. But I do think a focus on balance to the exclusion of variety was a leading cause. Source: it's why I quit. So I know I'm right about this at the micro level at least, if not at the macro.

Why would that be? Well, since they wanted everything to be balanced, they had to ensure that no class had unique mechanics. That meant ensuring that stealth was useless in dungeons, for instance, so druids and rogues couldn't abuse it. It also meant ensuring that every class could do within 10% the same DPS, that every tank was equally good at tanking, that no class could be the only one filling a specific role, that no class could be the only one that could create a given effect...and so on. Blizzard started removing or negating those things that made classes and players unique, in an effort to balance.

The trouble: players want to be different. The moment balance gets in the way of variety or player choice is the moment that balance has gone too far. For instance, some people have proposed removing stunning strike from monk, or replacing it with a nerfed ability, and upping their DPR instead to make them more like a fighter. I've come to see this as a terrible idea. It's easier to balance, but produces a lot less variety at the table. Furthermore, the reason to pick a monk over a fighter, or vice versa, fades...just like what happened with WoW.

In short, my point is that balance isn't everything, and nor do I think it ought be a first or even second priority in a game like D&D.

Waterdeep Merch

2017-08-24, 07:00 PM

Just got a chance to read over Kryx's materials proper, specifically the Traits section. I wanted to address it specifically in a more relevant thread.

It's genius. I wish there were more traits, but the fault lies in the fact that there weren't enough feats to convert like this. I might include an extra one gained between levels 10 and 20 as well (maybe 15, it's mostly a dead level anyway), though that's a matter of taste and with the current dearth of options, restraining it's necessary to prevent serious overlap between players. It's something the system really should have had in the first place to emphasize that there's more to gaining levels than killing things better.

And you get to do cool things like make a master tactician that's also an awesome tracker or an experienced spelunker. Or a wizard that practices good cardio. That's just great.

Kryx

2017-08-25, 06:03 AM

In short, my point is that balance isn't everything, and nor do I think it ought be a first or even second priority in a game like D&D.
I'll keep it brief as I don't see us making much headway in this regard:

Balance matters. For example Intelligence saves being so imbalanced makes creatures like Mind Flayers incredibly deadly. Most players have a horrible intelligence save (because there are so few) that by the time they face a mind flayer their chance to succeed vs mind blast is around 15%. No player likes to face such chances and those chances are true on all Intelligence saves. Balance matters very much.

Just got a chance to read over Kryx's materials proper, specifically the Traits section. I wanted to address it specifically in a more relevant thread.

It's genius. I wish there were more traits, but the fault lies in the fact that there weren't enough feats to convert like this. I might include an extra one gained between levels 10 and 20 as well (maybe 15, it's mostly a dead level anyway), though that's a matter of taste and with the current dearth of options, restraining it's necessary to prevent serious overlap between players. It's something the system really should have had in the first place to emphasize that there's more to gaining levels than killing things better.

And you get to do cool things like make a master tactician that's also an awesome tracker or an experienced spelunker. Or a wizard that practices good cardio. That's just great.
Thanks for saying so! Just last night I made changes to the half feat progression which I think it's quite improved. Check it out!

You can see the changelog (https://bitbucket.org/mlenser/5ehomebrew/wiki/Changelog) for more details. I'll probably put up another post here to inform users and have discussions on these changes and future ones in a few days.

Sindeloke

2017-08-25, 08:37 AM

Mjolnirbear

2017-08-25, 08:46 AM

PhantomSoul

2017-08-25, 09:31 AM

I condensed them down to a couple of pages and made them universally available no matter the class, but they are amazing and my players love them.

Do you have it uploaded anywhere? I'd love to take a look!

Kryx

2017-08-25, 11:50 AM

Just for the record, more people were subbed to WoW at the end of Wrath of the Lich King than ever have been either before or since. The peak of Vanilla activity, when balance was an absurd pipe dream and only one of three "tank" classes was even capable of tanking, much less in balance with the others, was 8 million subs. The entire duration of Wrath, when inter-class balance was a major focus, subs were at 11.5 million, except the very last quarter, when they hit 12 million even.

Not only is correlation not causation, there isn't even correlation here to begin with.
Ah, justification for not placing much value in human perception. Thanks for the clear clarification!

Kryx and Waterdeep Merch:

DiBastet created a list on DMSGuild of 100+ ribbons. He separated them by class, but there are several very unique ones. I condensed them down to a couple of pages and made them universally available no matter the class, but they are amazing and my players love them.
100+ Character "Ribbons" by DiBastet (http://www.dmsguild.com/product/172614/100-Character-Ribbons-by-DiBastet?filters=0_0_45397_0_0_0_0_0) is the product, but it costs money so I wouldn't share it.

I'd be curious for purposeful traits, but the product sounds a bit.. strange.. "You have advantage on Wisdom (Perception) and Intelligence (Investigation) checks to locate innocent creatures, like children, virgins and pets.." That's just too strange and too niche for my tastes.

Waterdeep Merch

2017-08-25, 12:17 PM

Kryx and Waterdeep Merch:

DiBastet created a list on DMSGuild of 100+ ribbons. He separated them by class, but there are several very unique ones. I condensed them down to a couple of pages and made them universally available no matter the class, but they are amazing and my players love them.
Just had a look at the preview. They're not exactly what I'm looking for. Using hard liquor like a cure disease potion through Cures What Ails You sounds cool, but it further invalidates diseases in games- something I'd really rather not have. For Uncivilized, giving up literacy at a level other than 1st is just... stupid. Really stupid. Against the Tide's a pretty clear combat buff and not what I'd call a 'ribbon', I don't even know how else to describe advantage on a saving throw. Even an uncommon one.

They're not all bad, but a lot are either so specific that many games won't allow for their use at all or are pretty clearly overpowered. With few exceptions, they aren't ideal for my interests.

And 10 per class with an expected 5 over a career? Too few options, likely to make class builds feel same-y, especially with the clear power difference.

Easy_Lee

2017-08-25, 12:58 PM

Just for the record, more people were subbed to WoW at the end of Wrath of the Lich King than ever have been either before or since. The peak of Vanilla activity, when balance was an absurd pipe dream and only one of three "tank" classes was even capable of tanking, much less in balance with the others, was 8 million subs. The entire duration of Wrath, when inter-class balance was a major focus, subs were at 11.5 million, except the very last quarter, when they hit 12 million even.

Not only is correlation not causation, there isn't even correlation here to begin with.

Based on the data I've seen, the peak happened approximately halfway through wrath, then the population started going down. And the next two expansions had no impact on that descent. This correlates with my own experience with game-balance: it became a major concern in wrath, but only started to get out of hand around halfway through. They doubled down on balance in the next expansion, going far as to create a raid finder to ensure that everyone, casual or not, was able to find a raid. Contrast that with Vanilla, where only a tiny portion of the player base ever saw the final boss of Naxxramas.

But I'm getting off-topic here. Where my posts are concerned, people have a tendency to quote only the most extreme bit, then interpret it in an even more extreme way. So let me be as clear and brief as I can. I think mathematical balance matters more to you, Kryx, and even me than it does to the average player. This is not the conclusion I expected to reach, but one I've been unable to ignore.

Kryx

2017-08-25, 01:08 PM

I think mathematical balance matters more to you, Kryx, than it does to the average player.
I've said as much myself in another thread:

Most people don't focus on balance nearly as much as I do, but I can't see myself enjoying RAW D&D 5e with the imbalance that heavily prioritizes certain builds.

Terra Reveene

2017-08-25, 02:13 PM

Ravinsild

2017-08-25, 02:17 PM

I've said as much myself in another thread:

Just curious but how do you cope with 3.x/P where things like "Pun-Pun" the god kobold existed?

Kryx

2017-08-25, 02:46 PM

I have a few minor things that I think could be changed for the better. For example, Great Weapon Fighting could give a +1 damage bonus to any weapon wielded in two hands that use only one weapon damage die instead of just weapons that use a d12 as their damage die. That way Versatile weapons can get the bonus as well (they feel a bit left out). Or maybe that messes with the math and make versatile weapons far too strong?
I can't do this because it would boost halbred, glaive, and pike.

Is there a separate forum where suggestions can be posted Kryx? I feel like it'd be inappropriate to post it in the "report issue" thing.
For me as a developer clear cut ideas fit best in an issue tracker. I have an issue tracker for the Shaped character sheet I create for Roll20 (https://bitbucket.org/mlenser/5eshaped/issues) which is much easier for me to track bugs and suggestions. If those things were kept on forums they would be lost quite quickly.

I have an issue tracker for my homebrew (https://bitbucket.org/mlenser/5ehomebrew/issues?status=new&status=open) work as well.

That said an issue tracker is a place for clear bugs and clear suggestions. Forums work much better for discussion and collaboration. I'll open a thread on these forums in a few days when I feel like my rules are a bit more polished and ready for more through feedback. For now this thread will suffice.

Just curious but how do you cope with 3.x/P where things like "Pun-Pun" the god kobold existed?
I was actually a huge min-maxer in 3.P and 4e. Not explotaitative, but consider the amount of effort I put into balance for 5e and redirect that toward optimization. That was how I played.
I then GMed Pathfinder for a bit and absolutely hated the imbalance. I had a huge set of houserules for it as well before abandoning it in favor of 5e.

Terra Reveene

2017-08-25, 03:46 PM

I could easily expand the greataxe hacky fix to versatile weapons - good idea.

For me as a developer clear cut ideas fit best in an issue tracker. I have an issue tracker for the Shaped character sheet I create for Roll20 (https://bitbucket.org/mlenser/5eshaped/issues) which is much easier for me to track bugs and suggestions. If those things were kept on forums they would be lost quite quickly.

I have an issue tracker for my homebrew (https://bitbucket.org/mlenser/5ehomebrew/issues?status=new&status=open) work as well.

That said an issue tracker is a place for clear bugs and clear suggestions. Forums work much better for discussion and collaboration. I'll open a thread on these forums in a few days when I feel like my rules are a bit more polished and ready for more through feedback. For now this thread will suffice.

I was actually a huge min-maxer in 3.P and 4e. Not explotaitative, but consider the amount of effort I put into balance for 5e and redirect that toward optimization. That was how I played.
I then GMed Pathfinder for a bit and absolutely hated the imbalance. I had a huge set of houserules for it as well before abandoning it in favor of 5e.

By "clear suggestions" do you mean things like "I believe the Fighter's skills should include 'Brawn' as it's used in some of its maneuvers, such as 'pushing attack'."?

And by bugs I assume things like "the Cleric table seems to be ripped from the Bard table. It's got things such as 'clericic inspiration' on 10th level, song of rest, expertise, etc." ;)

Ravinsild

2017-08-25, 04:00 PM

I was actually a huge min-maxer in 3.P and 4e. Not explotaitative, but consider the amount of effort I put into balance for 5e and redirect that toward optimization. That was how I played.
I then GMed Pathfinder for a bit and absolutely hated the imbalance. I had a huge set of houserules for it as well before abandoning it in favor of 5e.

I think most people who enjoyed 3.P were min-maxers, but I soon found myself in the same shoes as you - hating it. The very idea that by the rules, as written, could create an abomination like "pun-pun" completely turned me off to it all.

That and the CoDZilla thing and the fact that eventually Martials just became worthless as the casters totally overshadowed them...it just didn't seem like a fun game to invest in, knowing that your life span as a Barbarian was limited while the Wizard would keep on trucking and get ever better.

I may have a bad impression of it, but I read forums more than I have practical experience in D&D because where I live and the people I know/knew weren't exactly the most nerd culture friendly.

Edit: This may be why I like 4e and 5e so much. As far as I understand Martials can compete at least 90% with what Casters do and don't just drop off into obscurity, so you can play what you want and feel valid.

FinnS

2017-08-25, 04:16 PM

Based on the data I've seen, the peak happened approximately halfway through wrath, then the population started going down. And the next two expansions had no impact on that descent. This correlates with my own experience with game-balance: it became a major concern in wrath, but only started to get out of hand around halfway through. They doubled down on balance in the next expansion, going far as to create a raid finder to ensure that everyone, casual or not, was able to find a raid. Contrast that with Vanilla, where only a tiny portion of the player base ever saw the final boss of Naxxramas.

But I'm getting off-topic here. Where my posts are concerned, people have a tendency to quote only the most extreme bit, then interpret it in an even more extreme way. So let me be as clear and brief as I can. I think mathematical balance matters more to you, Kryx, and even me than it does to the average player. This is not the conclusion I expected to reach, but one I've been unable to ignore.

WoW's problem was never so much about Class balance though, it was trying to find a balance between the casual and hardcore gamer.
In Vanilla it didn't matter that much if certain classes were better overall than others because every class had its niche.
When dealing with huge 40-man raid groups you needed something from every class (Lock's Soulstone, Pally buffs, Druid Innervates, Hunters pulling and mana-drains ect ect).
In PvP it didn't matter how good a class was if they didn't have access to Raid lewts. Lock's were IMO one of, if not the weakest PvP classes in Vanilla but a Lock running around in tier 2 or especially the caster's paradise AQ 2.5 gear would decimate entire groups of players. That kind of gear level was well out of the reach of the average casual player, hell, most of it was out of reach of the average non-casual player.
I mean sure you could grind and by grind I mean spend 10 hours a day minimum PvPing to eventually get tier 1 equivalent gear through the PvP ranks but again that left the casuals and only the best PvPers that also put a crazy amount of time in could even rise to Rank 12-14 (I made it to Rank 12 Marshal btw ;) being one of those players with T-2.5 access, I only wanted the Legs and had no need for the PvP weapons ).

The only real balancing Blizzard was concerned about going into the first expansion and especially the 2nd was how to balance out the casual vs hardcore players.
In the end Bliz didn't really have a choice as the casuals outnumbered the hardcore peeps at least 10-1 and had to cater to the $$$ group.
By the 3rd expansion, WotLK, the casuals had easy access to gear 1/2-1 tier below whatever the current top raid tier gear was and the overall gradual plummeting level and challenge of raid instances that started in BC had finally dropped to almost easy difficulty.

Actual Class balance didn't become a true #1 priority until the introduction of Arena PvP in BC and Blizzard didn't have a very good track record.

I know, I know, what the hell does this have to do with the thread? I'm getting there heh

So one of Blizzard's real first attempts at Class balance at the very end of Vanilla and the beginning of BC was Warrior Rage Normalization.
Basically a bunch of the "math guys" (who us Warriors suspected all played Locks and Rogues who hated us lol) came up with a new calculation for determining how much Rage a Warrior got per auto-attack.
It was an unmitigated disaster that made the Class almost unplayable. It was brutal.

Point being of course that Math solely on its own is a poor balancing tool.

Sidenote: The original Naxx...wow what a beauty that was. By far THE hardest instance in the history of WoW. My Guild managed 3 Boss kills in there prior to the final patch before expansion and that put us squarely in the top 0.1-0.2% of the entire WoW population world wide.
It was crazy!!! The vast majority of guilds that even made it in there never even had any Boss attempts cause they couldn't get past the trash mobs heh

Kryx

2017-08-25, 04:24 PM

By "clear suggestions" do you mean things like "I believe the Fighter's skills should include 'Brawn' as it's used in some of its maneuvers, such as 'pushing attack'."?

And by bugs I assume things like "the Cleric table seems to be ripped from the Bard table. It's got things such as 'clericic inspiration' on 10th level, song of rest, expertise, etc." ;)
Fighter does have Brawn under "Kryx’s Skills" ;)

The Cleric table however... wow, that's shameful. Thanks for pointing it out!

Edit: This may be why I like 4e and 5e so much. As far as I understand Martials can compete at least 90% with what Casters do and don't just drop off into obscurity, so you can play what you want and feel valid.
I think fondly on 4e. It had a ton of issues that needed to be fixed like the treadmill, but overall it was actually the most balanced edition by far - the least amount of houserules I've ever made at least, but I wasn't a GM then so it was probably different (though I could see the issues with PF even when I wasn't a GM).
Another poster here talks a decent amount how many of 5e's most praised ideas stem from 4e and I'm quite inclined to agree. 4e had a perception problem and some other problems, but it wasn't such a bad thing imo.

Easy_Lee

2017-08-25, 04:36 PM

Point being of course that Math solely on its own is a poor balancing tool.

See, this I agree with a lot*.

As an example, Assassins on paper deal the most damage out of any Rogue archetype. If D&D were an MMO, Assassins would be the most powerful archetype due to experienced players always knowing how to Surprise a given group of mobs. But in practice at the table, Assassins fail to Surprise opponents often enough that many players hate playing an Assassin.

Something else to consider: I'm currently playing a Grassland Druid for a group with two Paladins, a Fighter, a Rogue, and a Ranger. On paper and in practice, I have far more options than any of them. With regular castings of Pass Without Trace, Sleet Storm, etc., I have a huge impact on the party's overall effectiveness. And yet no one begrudges me for it, because I'm only filling my role. I picked the class not to be overpowered, but because the others needed a good support.

There are two common ways to balance an MMO:

By ensuring every class does something unique, so they don't need to be balanced against each other
By laying down a set of roles, and ensuring every class is equally good at any role they can fill

The second method is much more time-consuming, and necessarily must limit the uniqueness of any given class. It's impossible for everyone to be both different and the same at once.

I mention MMOs because in tabletops, there's no need for the second kind of balance. That's because every table has a DM. And if we're honest, it just isn't that hard to keep every player both effective and engaged in a given 5e game.

*Not that I disagreed with the rest of your post, but I cut it for brevity, regular mobile user and all that.

Ravinsild

2017-08-25, 04:40 PM

Fighter does have Brawn under "Kryx’s Skills" ;)

The Cleric table however... wow, that's shameful. Thanks for pointing it out!

I think fondly on 4e. It had a ton of issues that needed to be fixed like the treadmill, but overall it was actually the most balanced edition by far - the least amount of houserules I've ever made at least, but I wasn't a GM then so it was probably different (though I could see the issues with PF even when I wasn't a GM).
Another poster here talks a decent amount how many of 5e's most praised ideas stem from 4e and I'm quite inclined to agree. 4e had a perception problem and some other problems, but it wasn't such a bad thing imo.

4e is my favorite Edition, and always has been, but I've moved on to 5e because it's more familiar, in my opinion, to 3.P ideals and it's what most people seem to enjoy. Also it's currently officially supported with online tools and the like.

However the more I want to play a 5e Warlock the more I get frustrated with realizing how much it is NOTHING like a 4e Warlock. Do you think there's a way to smartly convert the aspects of the 4e Warlock, such as pact riders, an actually good Hexblade, and several control riders on damage dealing "spells" or are the two editions too alien for anything to translate well?

Kryx

2017-08-25, 04:54 PM

Something else to consider: I'm currently playing a Grassland Druid for a group with two Paladins, a Fighter, a Rogue, and a Ranger. On paper and in practice, I have far more options than any of them. With regular castings of Pass Without Trace, Sleet Storm, etc., I have a huge impact on the party's overall effectiveness. And yet no one begrudges me for it, because I'm only filling my role. I picked the class not to be overpowered, but because the others needed a good support.
You've put forth an argument that those in favor of balance have never supported. Druids and Paladins fill different roles.
Paladin provides DPR, Tankiness, burst damage, and utility spells.
Druid provides damage, CC, utility (spells and wildshape).

They fulfill different roles. Balance can be discussed across those roles, but I would argue that they are quite well balanced when using the adventuring data.

However the more I want to play a 5e Warlock the more I get frustrated with realizing how much it is NOTHING like a 4e Warlock. Do you think there's a way to smartly convert the aspects of the 4e Warlock, such as pact riders, an actually good Hexblade, and several control riders on damage dealing "spells" or are the two editions too alien for anything to translate well?
I find the 5e Warlock quite similar to the 4e Warlock. Fey, Infernal, EB, curse=Hex, Hellish Rebuke, Armor of Agathys. Quite similar imo.

Are you not satisfied with the Pact of the Blade I have made? It's quite good imo.

Ravinsild

2017-08-25, 05:09 PM

You've put forth an argument that those in favor of balance have never supported. Druids and Paladins fill different roles.
Paladin provides DPR, Tankiness, burst damage, and utility spells.
Druid provides damage, CC, utility (spells and wildshape).

They fulfill different roles. Balance can be discussed across those roles, but I would argue that they are quite well balanced when using the adventuring data.

I find the 5e Warlock quite similar to the 4e Warlock. Fey, Infernal, EB, curse=Hex, Hellish Rebuke, Armor of Agathys. Quite similar imo.

Are you not satisfied with the Pact of the Blade I have made? It's quite good imo.

It's really the spells, and the lack of meaning your pact has past a few features here and there. Just like Invocations were diluted to be "Anyone can get them" from the previous Warlock UA, the spells just don't have the spite that came with 4e spells.

I mean for one thing they had a large variety of damage types in the "cantrips" and even "Eldritch Strike" which was the melee version of Eldritch Blast just for melee Warlocks. Also all of their spells had damage type varieties, fire/cold/psychic/necrotic etc, but in each tier so you can focus and specialize on a theme like a fiery warlock, which often had even greater benefits for your Pact.

Examples: http://dnd4.wikia.com/wiki/Eldritch_strike http://dnd4.wikia.com/wiki/Hand_of_blight http://dnd4.wikia.com/wiki/Eldritch_bolt etc..

There was fire, cold, force, psychic, necrotic and melee coverage, and each with different effects

Also they had powerful control with really cool flavor such as:

http://dnd4.wikia.com/wiki/Chains_of_Levistus http://dnd4.wikia.com/wiki/Diabolic_grasp http://dnd4.wikia.com/wiki/Grasp_of_the_Iron_Tower

http://dnd4.wikia.com/wiki/Tyranny_of_flame

You can chain people so they can't move and then crush them with fire so they can't even stand, and it's very thematic as a dominating force on the battlefield. I just don't get much flavor or inspiration from the lackluster Warlock spells of 5e. I think Hunger of Hadar is really good, though, the milky tentacles of the void and all. I wish there were versions of Tyranny Of Flame and Chains of Levistus and so forth too, though.

Easy_Lee

2017-08-25, 05:19 PM

Kryx

2017-08-25, 05:29 PM

That's why I say balance isn't a major priority with D&D.
I don't understand why you're in this thread then. You've said your opinion on balance several times with random MMO references.

Will it continue until I relent?

People enjoy games for different reasons and in different ways.

Easy_Lee

2017-08-25, 07:01 PM

I don't understand why you're in this thread then. You've said your opinion on balance several times with random MMO references.

Will it continue until I relent?

People enjoy games for different reasons and in different ways.

Well, "opinions" is in the thread title. This is mine as it pertains to your house rules. A lot of what you've done is for mathematical balance. In my opinion, that isn't as big of a concern in tabletop games, especially across classes. As a D&D example, the original beast master is what happens when balance goes to far.

I'm not trying to insult you here. I don't have a problem with you.

Kryx

2017-08-25, 07:38 PM

Well, "opinions" is in the thread title. This is mine as it pertains to your house rules.
The point is that you have made your opinion on balance noted. There is no need to repeat it 20x.

Ravinsild

2017-08-25, 07:42 PM

Oh, by the way, in response to your other question: I think your pact boon fixes are good for the Warlock. Personally I don't see the need for all the other stuff, such as spell points and so forth, but other than that I think it's all good. That's just my thing though, my problem is less with the Warlock CLASS and more with how...underwhelming Warlock spells are, and how they're not as thematic, at least name-wise and effect-wise, as 4e. However that may be because a lot of spells are shared across multiple classes in general.

Zalabim

2017-08-26, 03:04 AM

Sidenote: The original Naxx...wow what a beauty that was. By far THE hardest instance in the history of WoW. My Guild managed 3 Boss kills in there prior to the final patch before expansion and that put us squarely in the top 0.1-0.2% of the entire WoW population world wide.
It was crazy!!! The vast majority of guilds that even made it in there never even had any Boss attempts cause they couldn't get past the trash mobs heh
My guild just managed to clear Naxx before BC. We stayed up late to make sure we killed Kel'Thuzad, and we did, once. I'm prepared to bask in your adoration. I put on my plagueheart gear before I signed off for good.[/sidenote]

Kryx

2017-08-26, 04:13 AM

my problem is less with the Warlock CLASS and more with how...underwhelming Warlock spells are, and how they're not as thematic, at least name-wise and effect-wise, as 4e. However that may be because a lot of spells are shared across multiple classes in general.
You probably experience the same thoughts for Bard as well. I think the lack of class specific spells is a bit of a let down and could be remedied somewhat (by converting up to 15 spells or so), but I wouldn't say the flavor of the class is severely limited.

Converting some unique spells for Bard and Warlock would be interesting - do you want to give it a try? :)

Theodoxus

2017-08-26, 06:30 AM

Beauty Balance is in the eye of the beholder.

What does balance even mean? Since a lot of WoW talk has been in the thread, balance in WoW is generally (sadly, in my opinion) centered around PvP. No class should trounce any other, but then you have to look at raid composition and interplay between abilities, and even things like racial boons that can affect it. Oh, and character level. It's probably most obvious in the 10-19 bracket, where new 10s just don't have as many break out abilities as a 19. Even though everyone is averaged out to a typical 19th level character, so HP and DPS is close - not having your first talent, or all your abilities makes a huge difference in effectiveness - and leads to mob mentality.

Contrast that with top end (currently level 110) PvP and you find more tactical battles because everything is on a much more even playing field. Balance is a lot easier to achieve because there's no concern over missing abilities.. just making sure that every little fiddly bit isn't grossly OP such that a specific class will trounce any other.

What does that mean for D&D? Not much. It's not a PvP game, usually.

So, one should look at the raid performance of classes in WoW to get a better handle on what balance should mean in D&D? At least then it skews closer to what Easy Lee brought up: Balancing for Roles, rather than class vs class.

In WoW, no Mage looks at a Paladin Tank and scoffs their DPS, just as no Tank looks at the Mage and scoffs their tanking ability. (The opposite, when it happens though, is quite funny.)

5E, unlike 4E, has no true tanking ability - nothing that forces a mob to attack someone over another - that's pure DM determination. Being an avid WoW player, when I DM, I tend to think like a WoW player, and grant 'aggro' to those who should be, by the nature of their class/ability considered a 'tank'. Afterall, if someone has built a bearbarian, but never gets to play the Anvil, it's pretty disingenuous to them, no? Sure, the bearbarian has no 'in-game' ability outside of Intimidation and opening themselves up to attack by using Reckless Attack - but what flock of stirges is going to know that RA grants them advantage to attack the barbi, and thus a 'good idea'.

It's too bad that 4E was so unpopular, at least on forums like these. IMO, because classes were built with the fundamental concepts of Striker, Defender, Controller and Leader baked in, it was a lot easier to balance around those roles than trying to make sure each individual class and archetype were 'fun to play' (whatever that ephemeral phrase means - ask 100 players, you'll get 33,542 answers).

Some classes in 5E can be balanced as a whole, based on their role. As noted, Monk, Ranger and Rogue are all strikers who scout. That's pretty much all they do. A rogue can 'tank' a bit after 5th level with uncanny dodge, but it's 1 attack a round, that sacrifices their reaction which reduces their DPR by another potential sneak attack, so not ideal... Ranger's have a tiny bit of healing, but no one is looking at the Ranger as a dedicated healer... even a party comprised of a Barbarian, Fighter, Ranger, Rogue and Warlock - no one is thinking "oh thank god we have a healer!" when looking at the Ranger...

Other classes should be balanced around their archetype. A War Cleric functions better as a tank than a Light Cleric. A Life Cleric functions better as a healer than a Knowledge Cleric. All of them are decent at all three MMO roles - as much as those roles carry over to D&D, just some are better than others.

But, in the end, it's my contention that balance, for D&D purposes skews closer to making sure one class, even one build, doesn't massively overshine any other that everyone wants to be the first person to pick it for a new game; or that one class (less so for a build) is never even considered because it's terribad - or, if picked and leveled up a bit, the player hates every aspect of it and wants out, even if it means gnawing off their leg and bleeding out on their bed.

The problem with that definition of balance is that it's table specific, and really lays at the feet of the DM as to whether it's a problem or not. It's ridiculously easy as a DM to shut down any 'Pun-Pun' type build. Just as it is trivially easy to make a PHb standard beast master Ranger feel like he's the king of DPR and the MPV of the game - if that's the goal (hint, it shouldn't- but it could be).

So, I see Kryx's houserules less an attempt at creating balance for 5E, and more for him creating balance for HIS 5E. That he's offering them up for anyone to use/abuse/steal ideas from, is really noble. That he's willing to take criticism and flames for a lot of hard work is damn near divine.

Kryx

2017-08-26, 06:58 AM

The problem with that definition of balance is that it's table specific, and really lays at the feet of the DM as to whether it's a problem or not.
Perception of balance is based on the individual. True balance transcends the individual. This distinction is important because while GMs can make adjustments at their table there is a baseline of balance in general. One of my goals is to improve that baseline, similar to how the designers of the game sought to balance the game (and did a pretty decent job for the most part).

Meaning my changes aren't just my own thoughts, but I also attempt to reflect the community's opinion after reading threads here, on EnWorld, reddit, and elsewhere. There are plenty of general concensus alterations to base changes off of. For example the Warlock is considered a dip class due to its spell slot structure. Many people recognize that flaw in design (balance). You can also see a similar trend for Sorcerers and spells known - it's by far the most talked about issue surrounding the class. Rangers have much less clear issues due to everyone wanting something different from the class, but the sheer amount of discussion on the class shows problems.

Not that my solutions are perfect, but they are a bit more than just my opinion.

That he's offering them up for anyone to use/abuse/steal ideas from, is really noble. That he's willing to take criticism and flames for a lot of hard work is damn near divine.
Thanks for the appreciation! I've spent a lot of effort on these rules and really appreciate the kind words.

Kryx

2017-08-26, 08:16 AM

Ravinsild

2017-08-26, 11:15 AM

You probably experience the same thoughts for Bard as well. I think the lack of class specific spells is a bit of a let down and could be remedied somewhat (by converting up to 15 spells or so), but I wouldn't say the flavor of the class is severely limited.

Converting some unique spells for Bard and Warlock would be interesting - do you want to give it a try? :)

Actually that's exactly how I feel about the Bard. Their spell list is such a milk-drinker snore fest it puts me to sleep. Bards are BLAND.

Edit: As for your Barbarian and the Two-Weapon Fighting fixes, just in general, I wish, I really wish, they'd reprint the entire PHB with those rules as real official canon forever.

Kryx

2017-08-26, 11:37 AM

Actually that's exactly how I feel about the Bard. Their spell list is such a milk-drinker snore fest it puts me to sleep. Bards are BLAND.
Convert some spells for us! I can do some as well. It can be a collaboration!

As for your Barbarian and the Two-Weapon Fighting fixes, just in general, I wish, I really wish, they'd reprint the entire PHB with those rules as real official canon forever.
Thanks for the kind words :)

Kryx, I've told you before, but I just want you to know I think you're a genius at designing this kind of stuff. Please make the Magus (and let me know if you do!). I love Gishes and 5e seriously lacks a good Arcane Gish at the moment.

I regard you and your work highly enough that I would pretty much pay to have you include just a part of my Int halfcaster.
I have completed a first draft of the class: Magus (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?534447-Kryx-s-Magus-(Draft))

Ravinsild

2017-08-26, 01:00 PM

Convert some spells for us! I can do some as well. It can be a collaboration!

Name: Eldritch Strike
Level: Cantrip
Casting Time: 1 Action
Range/Area: 5 ft
Components: V, M *
Duration: Instantaneous
School: Evocation
Attack/Save: None
Damage/Effect: Force

As part of the action used to cast this spell, you must make a melee attack with a weapon against one creature within the spell’s range, otherwise the spell fails. On a hit, the target suffers the attack’s normal effects, takes your spellcasting ability modifier in force damage and is pushed back 5 feet.

This spell’s damage increases when you reach higher levels. At 5th level, with the melee attack you can roll one of the weapon’s damage dice one additional time to the target, and the force damage to the creature increases to 1d8 + your spellcasting ability modifier. You can roll one of the weapon’s damage dice one additional time and the force damage is increased by 1d8 at 11th level and 17th level.

This spell counts for all Warlock Invocations which effect the Eldritch Blast cantrip.

* - a weapon

Name: Chromatic Bolt
Level: Cantrip
Casting Time: 1 Action
Range/Area: 120 ft
Components: V, S
Duration: Instantaneous
School: Evocation
Attack/Save: Dexterity Save
Damage/Effect: Psychic

You hurl a multicolored bolt of fire. Choose one creature within range. The target must succeed on a Dexterity saving throw or take 1d8 psychic damage, and a different creature of your choice that you can see within 5 feet of it. The second creature takes psychic damage equal to your spellcasting ability modifier.

This spell’s damage increases when you reach higher levels. At 5th level, the primary attack deals an extra 1d8 psychic damage to the target, and the psychic damage to the second creature increases to 1d8 + your spellcasting ability modifier. Both damage rolls increase by 1d8 at 11th level and 17th level.

Name: Chains of Levistus
Level: 1st
Casting Time: 1 Action
Range/Area: 60 ft
Components: V, S
Duration: Instantaneous
School: Evocation
Attack/Save: Constitution Save
Damage/Effect: Cold

Spectral chains of ice leap from your hands and lash around your enemy. They pulse with cold each time your enemy moves. The target must make a Constitution saving throw. It takes 2d6 cold damage on a failed save, or half as much damage on a successful one, and it becomes sheathed in icy chains until the start of your next turn. If the target moves before then, it immediately takes 2d6 cold damage, and the spell ends.

Infernal Pact: If the target moves before the end of your next turn, you also gain advantage to your next attack roll against the target before the end of your next turn.

This spell’s damage increases for each spell slot above 1st. The attack deals an extra 1d6 cold damage to the target, and the damage the target takes for moving increases by 2d6.

Name: Witchfire
Level: 1st
Casting Time: 1 Action
Range/Area: 60 ft
Components: V, S
Duration: Instantaneous
School: Evocation
Attack/Save: Dexterity Save
Damage/Effect: Fire

From the mystic energy of the Feywild, you draw a brilliant white flame and set it in your enemy's mind and body. Rivulets of argent fire stream up into the air from its eyes, mouth, and hands; agony disrupts its very thoughts. The target must succeed on a dexterity saving throw or take 2d6 fire damage, and the target has disadvantage on attack rolls until the start of your next turn. Half damage on a successful save.

Fey Pact: The creature also grants advantage to all attack rolls made against it.

This spell’s damage increases for each spell slot above 1st. The attack deals an extra 1d6 fire damage to the target.

Name: Tyranny of Flame
Level: 3rd
Casting Time: 1 Action
Range/Area: 20 ft
Components: V
Duration: Instantaneous
School: Evocation
Attack/Save: Constitution Save
Damage/Effect: Fire

The target is engulfed in the agonizing flames of the Nine Hells, groveling and begging on its knees. The target must make a constitution saving throw. It takes 3d6 fire damage on a failed save, or half as much damage on a successful one. On a failed save, the target is also knocked prone. At the end of each of its turns, the target repeats the saving throw. It takes 3d6 fire damage on a failed save and remains prone, and the spell ends on a successful one. These magical flames can’t be extinguished through nonmagical means.

Infernal Pact: The target also has disadvantage to saving throws against this power.

If damage from this spell reduces a target to 0 hit points, the target is turned to ash.

Ravinsild

2017-08-26, 02:14 PM

Last spell just for something fun and different:

Name: Star Shackles
Level: 1st
Casting Time: 1 Action
Range/Area: 30 ft
Components: V, S, M *
Duration: Concentration 1 Minute
School: Evocation
Attack/Effect: Ranged
Damage/Effect: Psychic

A beam of pitch back void energy, laced with twinkling starlight from distant places, lances out toward a creature within range, forming a sustained arc of void chains between you and the target. Make a ranged spell attack against that creature. On a hit, the target takes 1d12 psychic damage, and the target is immobilized. At the start of each of their turns, each creature effected may make a dexterity saving throw to end the effect of this spell. On each of your turns for the duration of this spell creatures immobilized by this spell take 1d12 psychic damage. You can use a bonus action to use this spell's attack on one target the spell doesn't have immobilized within 10 feet of a target the spell does have immobilized. The spell ends if you use your action to do anything else. The spell also ends if the target makes a successful dexterity saving throw, is ever outside the spell’s range or if it has total cover from you.

Fey Pact: Creatures have disadvantage on the dexterity saving throw to break free of the immobilization effect.

At Higher Levels. When you cast this spell using a spell slot of 2nd level or higher, the initial damage increases by 1d12 for each slot level above 1st.

* - star dust

Terra Reveene

2017-08-26, 03:13 PM

Going back on this earlier response: I can't do this because it would boost halbred, glaive, and pike.

Versatile needs its own fix. Some people use +1 atk and +1 dmg which may be ok - I haven't looked at it enough.

That... Wouldn't that just essentially boost them up to around the same strength as the old version of GWM + d12 weapon? Wouldn't that be just fine? I can't it becoming stronger than a d12/2d6 weapon is all.

Kryx

2017-08-26, 04:08 PM

Chromatic Bolt
You hurl a multicolored bolt of fire. Choose one creature within range. The target must succeed on a Dexterity saving throw or take 1d8 psychic damage, and a different creature of your choice that you can see within 5 feet of it.
I don't see this in 4e, perhaps I missed it? This is basically acid splash with some psychic damage. Not really compelling enough to port..

Chains of Levistus
Spectral chains of ice leap from your hands and lash around your enemy. They pulse with cold each time your enemy moves. The target must make a Constitution saving throw. It takes 2d6 cold damage on a failed save, or half as much damage on a successful one, and it becomes sheathed in icy chains until the start of your next turn. If the target moves before then, it immediately takes 2d6 cold damage, and the spell ends.

Infernal Pact: If the target moves before the end of your next turn, you also gain advantage to your next attack roll against the target before the end of your next turn.
Seems decent enough, but spells based on pacts is a huge no-no in 5e. Spells were purposefully setup to be standalone items that have no knowledge of which classes use them.

Witchfire
From the mystic energy of the Feywild, you draw a brilliant white flame and set it in your enemy's mind and body. Rivulets of argent fire stream up into the air from its eyes, mouth, and hands; agony disrupts its very thoughts. The target must succeed on a dexterity saving throw or take 2d6 fire damage, and the target has disadvantage on attack rolls until the start of your next turn. Half damage on a successful save.
This seems like a lesser version of Bestow Curse. Sure, it's a bit different, but close enough in level and vastly inferior.

Tyranny of Flame
The target is engulfed in the agonizing flames of the Nine Hells, groveling and begging on its knees. The target must make a constitution saving throw. It takes 3d6 fire damage on a failed save, or half as much damage on a successful one. On a failed save, the target is also knocked prone. At the end of each of its turns, the target repeats the saving throw. It takes 3d6 fire damage on a failed save and remains prone, and the spell ends on a successful one. These magical flames can’t be extinguished through nonmagical means.
I would use the wording from command: "The target falls prone and then ends its turn." The wording needs some cleaning up.

Star Shackles
A beam of pitch back void energy, laced with twinkling starlight from distant places, lances out toward a creature within range, forming a sustained arc of void chains between you and the target. Make a ranged spell attack against that creature. On a hit, the target takes 1d12 psychic damage, and the target is immobilized. At the start of each of their turns, each creature effected may make a dexterity saving throw to end the effect of this spell. On each of your turns for the duration of this spell creatures immobilized by this spell take 1d12 psychic damage. You can use a bonus action to use this spell's attack on one target the spell doesn't have immobilized within 10 feet of a target the spell does have immobilized. The spell ends if you use your action to do anything else. The spell also ends if the target makes a successful dexterity saving throw, is ever outside the spell’s range or if it has total cover from you.
I don't see this in 4e, perhaps I missed it? Seems like a much better Witchbolt, but "stars" doesn't fit the GOO warlock - it could use a different name.

There are plenty of options to port from 4e. Dread Star's mechanics are decent, but as I'm looking at the options in 4e a great deal of them are in 5e. Up to level 13 in the 4e PHB:

Eldritch Blast
Eyebite
Hellish Rebuke
Vampiric Embrace (Vampiric Touch)
Armor of Agathys
Beguiling Tongue (Glibness)
Ethereal Stride (Misty Step)
Fiendish Resilience (False Life)
Shadow Veil (Pass without Trace, though apparently WotC decided that this was no longer in the Warlock's role)
Crown of Madness
Hunger of Hadar
Spider Climb
Mire the Mind (Slow - there is an invocation of the same name)
Sign of Ill Omen (Bestow Curse - there is an invocation of the same name)
Thief of Five Fates (Bane - there is an invocation of the same name)
Shadow Form (Etherealness)
Bewitching Whispers (Compulsion - there is an invocation of the same name)

They ported a great deal of abilities. Many that were overlooked don't make sense in 5e (such as slides).

In 4e Arcane Power:

Arms of Hadar

There are plenty of abilities ripe for porting in AP that have a much better warlock flavor than those you suggested imo:

Cloud of flies: "You breathe out a cloud of acidic black flies that streak across the battlefield, swarming your foe and attempting to enter its body"

Overall I think there are some good options in 4e to port, but they should be purposeful.

That... Wouldn't that just essentially boost them up to around the same strength as the old version of GWM + d12 weapon? Wouldn't that be just fine? I can't it becoming stronger than a d12/2d6 weapon is all.
Polearms do not need a boost of +1 damage. They are already well within the expected damage points. See DPR of Classes (https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1d-9xDdath8kX_v7Rpts9JFIJwIG3X0-dDUtfax14NT0/edit#gid=2035285798). Increasing the damage of a polearm in comparison to a greatsword wouldn't be a desirable goal based on the math.

Ravinsild

2017-08-26, 04:50 PM

I appreciate the critique on my ports. I chose spells with cool sounding names honestly. Chromatic Bolt is from "Heroes of Elemental Power" splatbook, and Star shackles was introduced in "White Lotus Academy" by Peter Schaefer in Dragon #374.

Edit: For reference to the original spells I will provide links. I attempted to keep the spirit of the spell in tact for 5e, although using 5e concepts and language, instead of 4e. I thought it might be interesting to add pact modifiers just to see what it might do, although I'm aware that most spells are purposefully caster agnostic. Just a tinge of nostalgia from 4e. That said, perhaps I'm caught up on the names from 4e. They seem to carry weight and power over the more generic names of their 5e counterparts, in some respects.

Without further ado:

http://dnd4.wikia.com/wiki/Chromatic_bolt

http://dnd4.wikia.com/wiki/Star_shackles

http://dnd4.wikia.com/wiki/Eldritch_strike

http://dnd4.wikia.com/wiki/Chains_of_Levistus

http://dnd4.wikia.com/wiki/Witchfire

http://dnd4.wikia.com/wiki/Tyranny_of_flame

Spells I thought might be interesting to port over, but may already have counterparts I'm not aware of, or may not be interesting enough to warrant it:

http://dnd4.wikia.com/wiki/Tyrannical_Threat (a way to add hex without spending a spell slot plus some additional effects?)

http://dnd4.wikia.com/wiki/Crackling_Fire (it's kind of just burning hands but makes things have weakness to fire)

http://dnd4.wikia.com/wiki/Dread_star (more control spells, which I like)

http://dnd4.wikia.com/wiki/Frigid_Darkness (the flavor text is really powerful, and giving everyone advantage is neat? I guess? Maybe something already does this?)

http://dnd4.wikia.com/wiki/Your_glorious_sacrifice (an interesting flavor of harming an ally for a boost in magic, very MTG Black cards style or WoW Warlock, plus poison damage support :D)

Kryx

2017-08-26, 05:25 PM

I'd suggest a new thread for 4e ports. I'd be happy to participate, though you'll get more feedback from others if you do it that way.

Ravinsild

2017-08-26, 05:32 PM

I'd suggest a new thread for 4e ports. I'd be happy to participate, though you'll get more feedback from others if you do it that way.

Oh, you said to convert some spells so I did. I don't think anyone else likes 4e as much as I did, and most people don't seem particularly dissatisfied or disappointed with the 5e Warlock. I'm just going to stick with 5e classes I like, which are mostly all the martial ones. Barbarian/Ranger/Fighter/Paladin

Theodoxus

2017-08-26, 09:03 PM

Name: Tyranny of Flame
Level: 3rd
Casting Time: 1 Action
Range/Area: 20 ft
Components: V
Duration: Instantaneous
School: Evocation
Attack/Save: Constitution Save
Damage/Effect: Fire

The target is engulfed in the agonizing flames of the Nine Hells, groveling and begging on its knees. The target must make a constitution saving throw. It takes 3d6 fire damage on a failed save, or half as much damage on a successful one. On a failed save, the target is also knocked prone. At the end of each of its turns, the target repeats the saving throw. It takes 3d6 fire damage on a failed save and remains prone, and the spell ends on a successful one. These magical flames can’t be extinguished through nonmagical means.

Infernal Pact: The target also has disadvantage to saving throws against this power.

If damage from this spell reduces a target to 0 hit points, the target is turned to ash.

You have an instantaneous spell with an ongoing effect. That makes no sense. It should be 1 Minute, and ideally Concentration.

Ravinsild

2017-08-26, 09:20 PM

You have an instantaneous spell with an ongoing effect. That makes no sense. It should be 1 Minute, and ideally Concentration.

I'm not particularly familiar with the 5e spellcasting rules, per say.

Essentially the way I ported them was by copy and pasting 5e language that most closely got the result I wanted from various spells. The Eldritch Strike weapon damage increase was taken from the Half-Orc's Savage Attack racial trait. I know 5e uses very specific language so I wanted to keep that intact while also "simulating", for lack of a better word, the effect that the Power has in 4e. Since, in 4e, "concentration" spells are called "Sustained" or at least that's the closest to it, and Tyranny of Flame didn't have "sustained" language, instead it's like you just say "Kneel before me!" and they catch on fire and fall to the ground, but try and "stop drop and roll" i guess to end the effect, it wasn't that you're maintaining the spell, you just started it and it's on the enemy to end the fire.

That said, is a Concentration for X minutes more in line with how 5e would do this type of effect? I'm willing to change it.

Terra Reveene

2017-08-27, 04:59 AM

Just looked through the Paladin part, have some feedback:

Bugs

Paladin, Oath of Redemption, Channel Divinity, Emissary of Peace, currently says "Charisma (Persuasion)", should read "Charisma (Manipulation)" (?)

Suggestions

Give the Paladin the "Archery" Fighting Stance.
Reasoning: You've already allowed the Paladin to smite with any kind of attack, melee or ranged. Allowing them to pick the Archery Fighting Stance is only logical.

Additionally, the improved divine smite feature should grant extra damage on ranged attacks as well, it seems to have been forgotten.

The Paladin table, level 11, Features column, should say "improved smite", currently says "improved divine smite".
The two features are only related by name, not by function, but a change of one of the features' names should change the others imo.

Questions

What is the reasoning behind the Banishing Smite's second to last wording "within 30 feet"? (it's also got a grammatical error. It should read "at which point the targets returns to a point within 30 feet of the space if left"). With this new wording, you could theoretically cover all the space within 30 feet of the point where the creature got banished with solid matter, meaning the creature either couldn't return or its return would result in its death(?).
It simply seems like the wording you replaced sufficed. Is the intention of your new wording to allow the banished creature to choose where it reappears?

Also, is this the kind of formatting you want on your issue site thing? If so I could start posting there instead of here.

Kryx

2017-08-27, 06:10 AM

Thanks for the feedback Terra Reveene!

Paladin, Oath of Redemption, Channel Divinity, Emissary of Peace, currently says "Charisma (Persuasion)", should read "Charisma (Manipulation)" (?)
Persuasion is correct. Manipulation replaces Deception and Intimidate. These feature is Persuasion by RAW and is meant to persuade someone, not lie to them or intimidate them.

Give the Paladin the "Archery" Fighting Stance.
Reasoning: You've already allowed the Paladin to smite with any kind of attack, melee or ranged. Allowing them to pick the Archery Fighting Stance is only logical.
I had it before, but removed it for some reason. I'll add it back as you suggest.

Additionally, the improved divine smite feature should grant extra damage on ranged attacks as well, it seems to have been forgotten.
Changed, thanks for pointing it out!

The Paladin table, level 11, Features column, should say "improved smite", currently says "improved divine smite".
Fixed, thanks!

What is the reasoning behind the Banishing Smite's second to last wording "within 30 feet"? (it's also got a grammatical error. It should read "at which point the targets returns to a point within 30 feet of the space if left").
The "reappears" wording was accidentally removed, thanks!

With this new wording, you could theoretically cover all the space within 30 feet of the point where the creature got banished with solid matter, meaning the creature either couldn't return or its return would result in its death(?).
It simply seems like the wording you replaced sufficed. Is the intention of your new wording to allow the banished creature to choose where it reappears?
There is a discussion on the Banishment spell: Do you find Banishment (spell) to be overpowered? (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?532064-Do-you-find-Banishment-(spell)-to-be-overpowered). I thought that thread had the suggestion to allow the creature to return in the nearby area, but it must've been a different thread.

Banishment is already a very strong option. This change avoids the caster and his friends from setting up forcecage or other strong options.

Dracomir

2017-08-27, 11:05 AM

I have a few comments on these, though this is just a preliminary look, since it is quite an extensive list and I didn't note down things on my first read-through.

1. Rangers and Paladins get cantrips.

Love this. Seems very odd that Eldritch Knights and Arcane Tricksters got cantrips as 1/3 casters, but paladins and rangers didn't as 1/2 casters.

2. 1 level of exhaustion when knocked unconcious

In your linked thread, you said something to the effect of this seems a bit heavy handed. Have your views evolved in the 2 years since that thread, or does it just seem to be the least bad solution? I had a thought regarding this, which won't necessarily stop yo-yoing, but should slow it down a little, and prevent the 1 hp heals.

When an unconscious character is healed, they must make a constitution check (not save) with a DC = (20 - HP healed). If they pass this check, they are under the effects of the Slow spell for one round. If they fail, they are stunned for one round, and then under the effect of the slow spell the following round.

I'm honestly not sure how well this would work, I have not tested it at all, so your mileage may vary. And as you can see, the yo-yo's can still happen, but they would be spread out a bit.

3. Sharpshooter changes

It seems quite underpowered now. I can understand the two options removed, but I don't think that I have ever needed the long range on a longbow, that may just be my DM though.
The un-noticed misses is powerful, but situational, and probably fits skulker better anyway. I just think this feat would be unlikely to ever be selected as it is. Maybe something along the lines of shooting at Prone creatures does not impose disadvantage? Perhaps you can only use one of the things at a time? (so if you were 600 feet away, shooting at a prone creature, you'd still be at disadvantage)

(edit 2) This simplfies it (and makes it a bit more powerful)

You can negate any 1 single effect that imposes disadvantage on your ranged weapon attacks, provided your target is at least 15' away.

4. Are these going to show up as options in the Shaped sheet? New sheet? Too much work to bother with?

Fingers crossed!

I can see that a lot of work went into these, and I may pick and choose some of the rules in my games, but obviously don't want to make such sweeping changes mid campaign. But I think that some may turn up, thanks for all of the hard work!

Edit (typo)
edit 2: another sharpshooter option
edit 3: added a minimum range for sharpshooter effect to occur, weakening it a bit from before, so it won't help if you try to shoot someone who is in your face, but it will help you shoot someone else if someone is in your face.

Terra Reveene

2017-08-27, 01:29 PM

I've looked through the Ranger class, have a few things on it:

Bugs

Primal Strike, Ensnaring Strike, has two lines of text stating that it does more damage with a higher spell slot. One at the end of its description and one right after the stated amount of damage it does.

Primal Strike, Lightning Arrow, should state that it increases damage right after the stated amount of damage to keep in line with the wording used for similar abilities (smites, arcane strikes, etc.). This might make the text box larger as a result.

Primal Strike, Zephyr Strike, "the feature ends" is weird wording. I believe it should be "this effect ends". Though I am not entirely sure about this.

Ranger Conclave, it states that it gives a feature at 11th level. That feature was removed in place of the Multiattack that rangers now get at 11th level.

Hide in Plain Sight, it gives a –10 penalty to Perception checks. With your changes to accommodate for better bounded accuracy, this should be disadvantage.

Suggestions

A few more Primal Strikes are in order imo. At least 3 more or so. Though I am not sure what should fill the spots. My gut tells me a fire themed, and a cold themed strike is missing, to cover most of nature's other elements. I think a strike that'll let you stealth away from the creature you attack would be cool as well, as that seems to be a big thing for the ranger (what with all the features that gives bonuses to stealth and all). I'm not sure how either of these would work, they're just thoughts for now.

Questions

Vanish's "can't be tracked by nonmagical means" was removed, I'm just curious as to why.

Foe slayer's been changed to increase Hunter's Mark damage by 1d6. This looks like a big nerf to the Ranger's capstone ability, as the previous version gave you overall more damage and also let you manipulate your attack roll. Why make the change? Surely you could just state that the damage increases to 2d6 at 20th level in the original Hunter's Mark feature, similarly to how the cleric does it with its divine intervention (if you intend on keeping it the way it is, that is).

General Thoughts

I really like the Primal Strikes. It, together with smites and arcane strikes brings together the Paladin, Ranger, and Magus as what is essentially martial/caster hybrids of the Cleric, Druid, and Wizard, respectively.

Kryx

2017-08-27, 02:31 PM

1. Rangers and Paladins get cantrips.

Love this. Seems very odd that Eldritch Knights and Arcane Tricksters got cantrips as 1/3 casters, but paladins and rangers didn't as 1/2 casters.
Agreed. They don't need to be super strong, but there are plenty of small and flavorful options to pick for each class.

2. 1 level of exhaustion when knocked unconcious

In your linked thread, you said something to the effect of this seems a bit heavy handed. Have your views evolved in the 2 years since that thread, or does it just seem to be the least bad solution?
I am quite satisfied with exhaustion upon falling unconscious. If you look at discussions on the topic and other houserules it seems several other people have arrived at the conclusion that exhaustion works for them. I think Zman uses it as well. Yo-yoing needs to have a harsh cost imo.

3. Sharpshooter changes

It seems quite underpowered now. I can understand the two options removed, but I don't think that I have ever needed the long range on a longbow, that may just be my DM though.
The un-noticed misses is powerful, but situational, and probably fits skulker better anyway. I just think this feat would be unlikely to ever be selected as it is. Maybe something along the lines of shooting at Prone creatures does not impose disadvantage? Perhaps you can only use one of the things at a time? (so if you were 600 feet away, shooting at a prone creature, you'd still be at disadvantage)
Long range is unlikely to impact much beyond hand crossbows, I agree. It's largely a fluff feature for most classes I would say.
Sharpshooter is basically a crossbow rogue feat. The long range benefit allows them to sneak attack at much further distances (they can only sneak attack if they don't have disadvantage, which long range gives them) and the second benefit allows them to have sneak attack on their second attack if they miss the first one.

If there are other buff ideas to ranged weapons I could consider them, but they'd go under another feat as Sharpshooter is quite good for a rogue.

(edit 2) This simplfies it (and makes it a bit more powerful)

You can negate any 1 single effect that imposes disadvantage on your ranged weapon attacks, provided your target is at least 15' away.
Shoting a prone creature at close distances would be easier than far distances.
I don't think removing the penalty for attacking prone creatures with ranged weapons is a feat I'd like to see in the game. New options for ranged weapons? If they're good. Removal of cover or prone penalty? No thank you.

4. Are these going to show up as options in the Shaped sheet? New sheet? Too much work to bother with?

Fingers crossed!
What are "these"? Character options? Probably not. It's so easy to copy+paste the options and my houserules are rather extensive so I'd have to provide 2 options.. ugh.

I can see that a lot of work went into these, and I may pick and choose some of the rules in my games, but obviously don't want to make such sweeping changes mid campaign. But I think that some may turn up, thanks for all of the hard work!
I'm glad you like the result that I have created! Thanks for the feedback!

Primal Strike, Ensnaring Strike, has two lines of text stating that it does more damage with a higher spell slot. One at the end of its description and one right after the stated amount of damage it does.

Primal Strike, Lightning Arrow, should state that it increases damage right after the stated amount of damage to keep in line with the wording used for similar abilities (smites, arcane strikes, etc.). This might make the text box larger as a result.

Primal Strike, Zephyr Strike, "the feature ends" is weird wording. I believe it should be "this effect ends". Though I am not entirely sure about this.

Ranger Conclave, it states that it gives a feature at 11th level. That feature was removed in place of the Multiattack that rangers now get at 11th level.

Vanish's "can't be tracked by nonmagical means" was removed, I'm just curious as to why.
Fixed! Thanks!
They'll be in the next version that I put out - probably tomorrow.

Hide in Plain Sight, it gives a –10 penalty to Perception checks. With your changes to accommodate for better bounded accuracy, this should be disadvantage.
Disadvantage is worth between -3 and -5. -10 is far beyond that.

A few more Primal Strikes are in order imo. At least 3 more or so. Though I am not sure what should fill the spots. My gut tells me a fire themed, and a cold themed strike is missing, to cover most of nature's other elements. I think a strike that'll let you stealth away from the creature you attack would be cool as well, as that seems to be a big thing for the ranger (what with all the features that gives bonuses to stealth and all). I'm not sure how either of these would work, they're just thoughts for now.
I don't want to step too much on the Paladin's or now Magus' toes by adding similar options. I've included the default ones, but I want to be very careful about adding additional options if I choose to do so.

Foe slayer's been changed to increase Hunter's Mark damage by 1d6. This looks like a big nerf to the Ranger's capstone ability, as the previous version gave you overall more damage and also let you manipulate your attack roll. Why make the change? Surely you could just state that the damage increases to 2d6 at 20th level in the original Hunter's Mark feature, similarly to how the cleric does it with its divine intervention (if you intend on keeping it the way it is, that is).
Foe Slayer is universally known as a terrible capstone.
1d6 on all attacks should be better than ~3-5 on attack/damage against one favored enemy per turn. Especially with the multiattack change.
That said I'm fully open to new capstones. I don't put too much effort into them because most games never reach 20.

I really like the Primal Strikes. It, together with smites and arcane strikes brings together the Paladin, Ranger, and Magus as what is essentially martial/caster hybrids of the Cleric, Druid, and Wizard, respectively.
I view the classes as the same, though I'm a bit wary about primal strikes. I view it as more utility than Smites or Arcane Strikes. Perhaps you're right about more options though.

Terra Reveene

2017-08-27, 02:45 PM

Disadvantage is worth between -3 and -5. -10 is far beyond that.
Even still, it messes with bounded accuracy. If you're okay with it then that's fine, though personally I think putting it at disadvantage instead of –10 and accepting that it's a nerf is a better option.

Foe Slayer is universally known as a terrible capstone.
1d6 on all attacks should be better than ~3-5 on attack/damage against one favored enemy per turn. Especially with the multiattack change.
That said I'm fully open to new capstones. I don't put too much effort into them because most games never reach 20.

I actually wasn't aware that it was only against your favored enemies. I've always played with it allowing the ranger to use it against any creature. I wasn't thinking about multiattack or extra attack + hunter's mark. Now that you mention it, that is a pretty significant boost in damage all things considered. I still stand by my opinion of just moving it to the hunter's mark ability though. Having an entirely different feature boost the damage of another feature is nonsensical imo. I think I mentioned it in my earlier post, but I'll mention it again just in case: the cleric's divine intervention is a good example of a capstone being rolled into a feature you gain earlier on.

If you want to keep it as a separate feature you could always allow the +Wis mod to attack/damage roll to all attacks on any creature, though I'm not sure if that'd be too powerful or not.

I view the classes as the same, though I'm a bit wary about primal strikes. I view it as more utility than Smites or Arcane Strikes. Perhaps you're right about more options though.

I'd view them as a smaller collection of spell attacks. They're essentially an extension of their spell lists, and a perfect way of weaving magic and martial combat into a single move. I do agree that there shouldn't be too many of them. They shouldn't cover anything more than the minimum. I just feel like the primal strikes options aren't quite there yet (though that is just my own opinion).

EDIT: Oh, and also, forgot to mention: I usually give rangers advantage on navigation checks as a part of their natural explorer feature. This might not mean anything at all to some people as they don't use navigation as a part of their world at all/not very often. Just a thing to consider, in case you'd want to add it.

Wherf

2017-08-27, 08:13 PM

Terra Reveene

2017-08-28, 09:24 AM

Taken a peek at the rogue.

Bugs

* Cunning Action, it states that you can be used to dash, disengage, hide, etc. It should say that you can use one of the options listed. I wonder though, could you technically let yourself be used by another player to let them take one of these actions by RAW currently? And would you be useable an unlimited number of times since it doesn't expend your action? :d

* Scout archetype, Ambush Master, the wording is a bit funky. "you can grant each ally who can see the ability to reroll initiative." should probably be something closer to "on your first turn of the combat, each of your allies may reroll their initiative roll"

Suggestions

* Expertise, allow the player to choose a Crafts and Trade to gain the benefit. Probably not particularly useful, but you never know. You sometimes get a weird player who just wants to mess around, and won't mind gimping their character a bit to achieve their personal goals.

* I know it isn't a part of the PHB Rogue, but I think the "expertise" in the Rogue table under 6th level should say "Expertise improvement". That's just my personal opinion though.

General Thoughts

* I really like that you moved the use magical device feature onto the rogue itself. It fits their theme a lot I think.

* I love rogues.

Kryx

2017-08-28, 04:22 PM

Hey Kryx, why do the cantrips Sacred Flame, Create Bonfire, Frostbite, and Poison Spray have guaranteed damage? On a successful saving throw, they still deal half as much damage. What is the logic behind this, I am still getting used to 5e.
All cantrips are balanced up to the point of of Fire Bolt's damage. I chose to balance up instead of down for a few reasons:

It required less changes
Cantrip damage is 25% of martial damage. 35% with ability score on cantrips. And that's using Fire Bolt as the cantrip. Other cantrips were far worse.

Without such a change to cantrips options like Chill Touch Lightning Lure, Hand of Radiance, Sacred Flame, Thunderclap, Vicious Mockery, etc were not great choices.

* Cunning Action, it states that you can be used to dash, disengage, hide, etc. It should say that you can use one of the options listed. I wonder though, could you technically let yourself be used by another player to let them take one of these actions by RAW currently? And would you be useable an unlimited number of times since it doesn't expend your action? :d
Cunning action specifically has "once per turn so it cannot be used multiple times. The wording was messed up though, fixed it: "Starting at 2nd level, your quick thinking and agility allow you to move and act quickly. Once on your turn, you can Dash, Disengage, Hide, Use an Object, or make a Dexterity (Finesse) check without expending your action."

I don't know what you mean by "be used by another player".

* Scout archetype, Ambush Master, the wording is a bit funky. "you can grant each ally who can see the ability to reroll initiative." should probably be something closer to "on your first turn of the combat, each of your allies may reroll their initiative roll"
Wording fixed by adding the missing "you": "Starting at 13th level, you excel at leading ambushes. If any of your foes are surprised, on your turn in the first round of the combat you can grant each ally who can see you the ability to reroll initiative. If the initiative bonus would increase an ally’s initiative above yours, the ally’s initiative instead equals your initiative."

* Expertise, allow the player to choose a Crafts and Trade to gain the benefit. Probably not particularly useful, but you never know. You sometimes get a weird player who just wants to mess around, and won't mind gimping their character a bit to achieve their personal goals.
I'd rather not allow players to purposefully nerf their own characters in the mechanics of the game.

* I know it isn't a part of the PHB Rogue, but I think the "expertise" in the Rogue table under 6th level should say "Expertise improvement". That's just my personal opinion though.
It's not an improvement to the existing expertise, it's an additional choice.

* I really like that you moved the use magical device feature onto the rogue itself. It fits their theme a lot I think.

* I love rogues.
Agreed on both parts. They are a well executed class which is evident by my spare adjustments to them.

FinnS

2017-08-28, 06:12 PM

All cantrips are balanced up to the point of of Fire Bolt's damage. I chose to balance up instead of down for a few reasons:

It required less changes
Cantrip damage is 25% of martial damage. 35% with ability score on cantrips. And that's using Fire Bolt as the cantrip. Other cantrips were far worse.

Without such a change to cantrips options like Chill Touch Lightning Lure, Hand of Radiance, Sacred Flame, Thunderclap, Vicious Mockery, etc were not great choices.

See, I couldn't provide a more perfect example of how math fails on its own for balancing.
Some Cantrips are about versitility, not damage or have other effects.
Sacred flame is great against hulking low dex targets or heavily armored targets. Not to mention it never suffers penalties for cover and it's Radiant damage.
Vicious mockery is a WIS save, it does rare and exotic damage and causes their next attack to suffer Disadvantage.
Chill Touch also prevents health regain of any type and added benefits vs Undead.

Firebolt does the damage that it does because that's all it does and it uses one of the most common resisted damage type.
It's stuff like this that shows clearly how relying on math alone blinds you to the forrest for the tree's.

Kryx

2017-08-28, 07:23 PM

See, I couldn't provide a more perfect example of how math fails on its own for balancing.

It's stuff like this that shows clearly how relying on math alone blinds you to the forrest for the tree's.
Ok, I think we're past the point of cordiality here. Your statements are so pompous.

Some Cantrips are about versitility, not damage or have other effects.
Come on.. you must think I'm really stupid to not have considered those factors. Again you probably didn't look at the math at all and yet have come in here guns blazing with your "math is bad" ideology. Your ideology is baseless as the core game of d&d and it's design is based on math. If you reject math as you claim to then you have no grounds to speak about game balance.

Sacred flame is great against hulking low dex targets or heavily armored targets. Not to mention it never suffers penalties for cover and it's Radiant damage.
Saving throws are good against creatures with low ability scores... That's true for all spells and cantrips and yet all spells and cantrips are balanced on that idea already. Have you seen toll the dead? Or poison spray? You know what those cantrips do? They cause a saving throw, ignore cover, and do lots of damage (1d10 and 1d12 for the short range and con).

Vicious mockery is a WIS save, it does rare and exotic damage and causes their next attack to suffer Disadvantage.
If you actually would look at the math of the game you'd know that Wis saves aren't a weak save for monsters. Disadvantage on 1 attack is great, but it performs poorly against larger groups of enemies as you're using your whole action to soft cc one creature. It excels vs bosses mostly. It also scales poorly as monsters get more attacks as you progress in levels.
It's a good spell at early levels, but isn't overpowered with a slight damage boost. It would be doing ~20% of martial damage with some very soft cc at the cost of your action.

Chill Touch also prevents health regain of any type and added benefits vs Undead.
Looks like you haven't looked at my changes. What a surprise.

Fire bolt's niche is range and damage. In my rules that has not changed. Fire bolt is still a very strong pick - the best for damage besides eb.

I don't care to be spoken to in the way you choose to conduct yourself and your ideology and obvious lack of desire to actually read my rules makes these conversations pointless. I won't be seeing your posts on the future.

ZorroGames

2017-08-28, 07:49 PM

TL/DR. I'm sure there is some good stuff in there but if someone linked a 157 page Homebrew file and told me we using these rules I'd politely decline.

Yes but mostly because it would be a new game and I am still trying to learn 5e after skipping decades between AD&D/1st and this.

Probably many wonderful parts but getting some players locally? Thinking that would be a hardsell.

Terra Reveene

2017-08-29, 05:55 AM

I don't know what you mean by "be used by another player".
Since it stated that you could be used, I was jokingly saying that another player (read player character) could use you like a potion to gain one of the listed benefits. I then went on to say that since being used like a potion didn't take up the rogue's action, you could be used the same way multiple times. It was all a joke, so nothing to mind :d

Also, two things that I forgot. They're very minor: It states that you an choose the Thief as an option in the Rogueish archetype feature, but there is no thief to choose from.
The Arcane Trickster's Spell Steal feature has amisspelling error, should be "or", not "ar" in its description.

Now, onto the notorious sorcerer.

General Thoughts

* One of the reasons I don't like sorcerers is their lack of identity. Or, rather, their identity not being that well supported in their own main class features.
The PHB sorcerer has metamagic as its main theme alongside their sorcerous origins, yet I personally think metamagic is more pronounced than their origin, given that metamagic is a bigger part of the main class and one of the first things you spot when looking at the sorcerer. When I looked at the sorcerer class in the PHB for the first time, all I could think was "alright, so it looks like a sorcerer is a spellcaster that does metamagic", and I think that's very wrong.
(suggestion) To aleviate this, I think adding some extra text in their main class would do wonders with helping with pointing towards their main feature: sorcerous origins. Now, I know you don't have metamagic, so there's only the sorcerous origins feature to look at, but a first look gives me the impression of a very barebones caster (one that actually doesn't have that much uniqueness going for it, compared to the cleric, druid, etc.) Now, I know that this is not the case, looking at all their sorcerous origins features. But I still think you could add some extra support for the sorcerer to make it FEEL unique.

This is what I propose: Add this under the sorcerous origin feature, after all the text in it:

#### Irregular Appearance
A sorcerer's appearance is altered by the source of their innate magical power. This change in appearance makes it evident that they are no ordinary person. Sorcerers from the Infernal Bloodline may live as outcasts due to having devilish horns, red eyes, or devilish colored skin. A sorcerer with the Celestial Bloodline might be revered as an instrument of a god by their followers, having glowing white eyes, or small feathered wings. The possible changes of appearance is listed in the origin's description.

With this, at first glance, it'd make the sorcerer's main theme a little bit more pronounced. It would also support a modified race, as you could mix and match some features from one race with those from another (you could be a tiefling with the celestial bloodline, giving you some aspects of an angel and some aspects of a devil, or you could be a human with the verdant bloodline, giving you some aspects of a dryad for example).

For the case of wings, the wings you start off with as your natural appearance can't be used for flight.

(all of these features should be detailed under a feature called "Modified Appearance". As a final note, in case it isn't clear, these are strictly only for appearance. There are no gameplay benefits from them (apart from RP benefits, and possible bonuses handed out from the GM. Such as when in a town where a celestial looking being would have social benefits. But that depends on the GM, not the game itself, so I don't think that's something to consider).

These are all based on the feral tiefling's change in appearance from SCAG. I think it's the most appropriate way to implement this.

Fey Bloodline
Choose 1d4 + 1 of the following features: green, blue, or purple skin; twigs and flowers instead of hair; bark instead of skin; goat-like legs; silvery light gray eyes; vibrantly colored hair; feathers instead of hair; pointy ears; exude a smell of flowers; a pair of small pixie wings (these wings are purely cosmetic and can't be used for flight); a fox tail; wolf ears; fangs or sharp teeth.

Infernal Bloodline
The same options as the feral tiefling from SCAG would do.

Storm Sorcery
Choose 1d4 + 1 of the following features: cloudy eyes; lichtenberg figures; exude a smell of petrichor; very light metal objects are drawn to you; white hair; overly watery eyes or skin; often accompanied by a light breeze; dark blue, dark gray, or white skin; often followed by a light mist.

I'll do more of these for my own sorcerer, though if you want more of these I'll gladly give them to you.
I honestly think this is the best way to give the sorcerer a stronger feeling identity, going out from your sorcerer. I agree on metamagic not cutting it, and actually being actively harmful to the sorcerer's identity, given how large it actually is compared to the sorcerous origin in the PHB sorcerer's main class.
There may be more ways of reinforcing the sorcerer's identity, but I'm not sure how to include that in its main class. Everything hinges on what origin you choose for your sorcerer. I'm not sure how you'd include more features in the main class that'd work for any kind of origin. The only other way to reinforce the sorcerer's identity would be exactly that though; give them more features that are related to their sorcerous origin.

* The reasoning behind the Sorcerer having constitution as a saving throw is because the nature of its sorcerous origins grants it powers that make them tougher. Most people that have been infused with divine celestial powers, primal draconic powers, fiendish powers, etc. are expected to be a bit tougher in nature, no matter what powers they actually gain from the infusion itself (this is purely my opinion, of course, but I do find this to be the case for almost anything fantasy related). Still, it's your choice. But there is reasoning and logic behind Constitution as a saving throw for the sorcerer, and I think it'd be unfair to ignore it.

* I personally don't think you should have features that allow the sorcerer to cast a certain spell once per short rest. I mentioned earlier that a feature the sorcerer could have in its main class would be a better one. Something that helps reinforce their identity as a spellcaster who's gained their powers through a bloodline (similarly to how a cleric gains the divine intervention feature, for example). I'm not sure how that'd be implemented, but I think ripping the additional spell feature and giving sorcerers something else as a main class feature on that same level is a better decision.
I wish I had ideas, but I don't at the moment. I'm really not sure how that would look at the moment. I'll get back to you if I can think of something. It HAS to be in the main class though, imo. That's the first place a player will look when considering the class, and if there's almost nothing there they'll be confused. I don't think the increased origins features will cut it, it doesn't center the sorcerers around any kind of general idea.

EDIT: Actually, come to think of it, most of your sorcerers gain a feature that increases AC, yeah? Put that in the main class! Along with a description stating that their AC is increased due to the appearance changes I suggested earlier. That'd help quite a bit with giving the sorcerer a central theme. It'd give you an idea of what a sorcerer is; a spellcaster who's been toughened up by being infused and changed by their sorcerous origin. It'd be the perfect 'indelible mark' to show any player who casts a glance at the class what a sorcerer is.
I'd also replace, as said before, most of the 6th level features with something else. Preferably a main class feature to help reinforce the sorcerer's theme.

Questions

* I originally had a question about Eschew Materials, but I see now what benefits it gives you. To make sure though:
The benefits of Eschew Materials is being able to cast spells as though you had a component pouch at hand at all times, and they can occupy both hands with anything they want while still accessing this imaginary component pouch. Is this correct?
How do you handle material components with other spellcasters?

* Why are you giving the Sorcerer its Sorcerous Restoration twice per day while other casters get their similar features once per day? Is this to make it slightly different to other casters?

General Thoughts

* PHB Sorcerers make me sad.

* Your version doesn't really change that, but it does extract one of the components that made the PHB Sorcerer sad out of it, and to a much better place as a feat. So I guess your version makes me less sad? I'd call that an improvement.

* You have many kinds of origins, and I'm not sure I'll all of them myself. I think I'll start making the changes I think will make your sorcerer a happy sorcerer, and if I do notice some mistakes such as wording or spelling errors, I'll let you know.

EDIT2: Apologies for the wall of text. I hope you get something out of it, though.

Kryx

2017-08-29, 07:38 AM

Terra Reveene, thanks for continuing to provide such through proofreading and feedback - I really appreciate it.

It states that you an choose the Thief as an option in the Rogueish archetype feature, but there is no thief to choose from.
The Arcane Trickster's Spell Steal feature has amisspelling error, should be "or", not "ar" in its description.
Both fixed, thanks

a first look gives me the impression of a very barebones caster (one that actually doesn't have that much uniqueness going for it, compared to the cleric, druid, etc.)
Is that different than any other full caster? Lets compare class tables:
http://i.imgur.com/5Dpu815.png http://i.imgur.com/01cPdd2.png http://i.imgur.com/F2OHmFm.png

The Wizard table looks incredibly empty, but we all know that isn't the case. The Sorcerer table looks quite comparable to the Druid table I'd say.

Listed class features:
Bard has 11, but only 3 subclass features
Cleric has 6, with 5 subclass features.
Druid has 8, with 5 subclass features.
Paladin has 13, but only 3 subclass features
RAW Sorcerer has 6, with 5 subclass features
My Sorcerer has 5, with 8 subclass features
Wizard has 6, with 5 subclass features.

Classes vary quite a bit by how many core and subclass features they have. Bard and Paladin have a lot of core, but few subclass. My Sorcerer has the least core, but the most subclass features. Most others are in between. None of them list that difference in the class.

Now, I know that this is not the case, looking at all their sorcerous origins features. But I still think you could add some extra support for the sorcerer to make it FEEL unique.
Sorcerer has Eschew Materials, greatly expanded spell lists for each subclass, and greatly expanded subclass features.

#### Irregular Appearance
A sorcerer's appearance is altered by the source of their innate magical power. This change in appearance makes it evident that they are no ordinary person.
Forcing player appearance changes isn't a good design imo. It should be possible if a player wants to have a different appearance, but it shouldn't be forced.

I can add some more wording and some examples for appearance on each subclass, but the extent of their implementation should really be up to the player and GM to determine.

I'll do more of these for my own sorcerer, though if you want more of these I'll gladly give them to you.
Please do share. I'll add each of them.

* The reasoning behind the Sorcerer having constitution as a saving throw is because the nature of its sorcerous origins grants it powers that make them tougher. Most people that have been infused with divine celestial powers, primal draconic powers, fiendish powers, etc. are expected to be a bit tougher in nature, no matter what powers they actually gain from the infusion itself (this is purely my opinion, of course, but I do find this to be the case for almost anything fantasy related). Still, it's your choice. But there is reasoning and logic behind Constitution as a saving throw for the sorcerer, and I think it'd be unfair to ignore it.
There are hundreds of ways to fluff abilities. By that same logic a Cleric infused with divine energy could be Constitution or a a Warlock is hearty after being infused with their patron's magic.

I've debated this myself several times and have almost sucumb to the Constitution line of thinking several times, but it always comes back to "Charisma is your spellcasting ability for your sorcerer spells, since the power of your magic relies on your ability to project your will into the world. A Sorcerer is a mentally strong class, not a physically strong class. Constitution is strength of the body and there is nothing in the Sorcerer's fluff that implies that their bodies are any more resilient than others.
I actually think Wis/Cha is a better choice for the normal saving throw rules and will make that change.

* I personally don't think you should have features that allow the sorcerer to cast a certain spell once per short rest. I mentioned earlier that a feature the sorcerer could have in its main class would be a better one. Something that helps reinforce their identity as a spellcaster who's gained their powers through a bloodline (similarly to how a cleric gains the divine intervention feature, for example). I'm not sure how that'd be implemented, but I think ripping the additional spell feature and giving sorcerers something else as a main class feature on that same level is a better decision.
More spells was meant to compensate the lack of versatility with more raw power - it was the concept behind the Sorcerer in 3.X.

Lets look at the 6th level features:

Blinding / Healing Touch - very flavorful feature that isn't a spell, but fits in the same balance as a 4th level spell
Dragon's Breath - it's a spell in name, but the wording of it could easily be a feature. I think it belongs as a feature, but this is just a presentation issue.
Fey Charm - compulsion is very flavorful for a fey
Hellfire - wall of fire is a very flavorful spell for a fiend. Think of Diablo in Diablo 2 for example.
Fiery Escape - A phoenix flying away and leaving a trail of fire is quite flavorful imo.
Shadow Walk is like a lesser and more restricted dimension door, but it has more uses.
Stone Aegis (Stoneskin) is very flavorful for a stone sorcerer.
Thunderbolt being called down by a storm sorcerer is very flavorful.
Rotting Thralls - a necromancer being able to summon undead is very flavorful
Grasping Vines - a nature based sorcerer being able to use an AoE like Evard's, but with vines? What's not to like?
Bend luck isn't a spell

Or are you talking about the 18th level features?

Blizzard fits the cold theme
Holy Nimbus isn't a spell
Frightful Presence isn't a spell (though acts like one)
Elder Fey isn't a spell (though allows usages of some)
Fire Storm fits the devil theme (think of demon creatures in diablo 2 calling down fire)
Form of the Phoenix isn't a spell
Shadow Lord isn't a spell
Earthquake fits the stone theme
Tsunami fits the storm theme
Bringer of Death - Circle of Death and finger of death fit the necromancer theme
Thorn Wall fits the plant theme
Spatial Tear fits the wild magic theme

I'm not quite understanding the complaint.

Thinking Verdant through: I wonder if this subclass should be on a druid. Crossing over like this feels like it cheapens the differences between the classes...

It HAS to be in the main class though, imo. That's the first place a player will look when considering the class, and if there's almost nothing there they'll be confused. I don't think the increased origins features will cut it, it doesn't center the sorcerers around any kind of general idea.
That's right - the Sorcerer isn't centered on any common features. It's centered on the common idea that every Sorcerer is different based on their bloodline. That's why there aren't many feautres in the core class.
As above there is a very wide amount of variance for the number of features each class and subclass has. This class is the opposite of a Paladin or Bard basically.

Actually, come to think of it, most of your sorcerers gain a feature that increases AC, yeah? Put that in the main class! Along with a description stating that their AC is increased due to the appearance changes I suggested earlier. That'd help quite a bit with giving the sorcerer a central theme. It'd give you an idea of what a sorcerer is; a spellcaster who's been toughened up by being infused and changed by their sorcerous origin. It'd be the perfect 'indelible mark' to show any player who casts a glance at the class what a sorcerer is.

Subclasses that set AC to 13 + dex: Boreal (on/off switch), Dragon, Infernal, Shadow, Stone
Subclasses that set AC to 10 + dex + cha: Celestial
Subclasses that set AC to 16: Verdant
Subclasses that have no AC benefit: Fey (avoid damage via invis), Phoenix (regain hp via spellcasting), Storm (fly away with no OAs), Undead (regain hp when you kill or cast spells), Wild (no defenses)

Unique defensive options is ideal. Infernal probably shouldn't be 13 + dex. Though I'm unsure what it should be - ideally a unique benefit like Fey or Phoenix

Setting all subclasses to 13 + dex would be a loss of flavor.

* I originally had a question about Eschew Materials, but I see now what benefits it gives you. To make sure though:
The benefits of Eschew Materials is being able to cast spells as though you had a component pouch at hand at all times, and they can occupy both hands with anything they want while still accessing this imaginary component pouch.
How do you handle material components with other spellcasters?
Eschew Materials is a flavorful feature for most games. It allows the Sorcerer to not use a component pouch or arcane focus. Mechanically it doesn't matter unles a GM takes those things away from casters.
Eschew Materials does not change the requirement for a free hand to cast somatic components so they will need a hand free.
I handle material components as RAW does: Either provide a component pouch or arcane focus for materials that have no cost.

* Why are you giving the Sorcerer its Sorcerous Restoration twice per day while other casters get their similar features once per day? Is this to make it slightly different to other casters?
RAW Sorcerers have 160 effective spell points per day. My Sorcerer has 163 - the goal was to keep a similar amount of effective spell points. It is twice per day to maintain that amount.

* PHB Sorcerers make me sad.

* Your version doesn't really change that, but it does extract one of the components that made the PHB Sorcerer sad out of it, and to a much better place as a feat. So I guess your version makes me less sad? I'd call that an improvement.
I don't quite understand this. I've addressed every mechanical deficiency that the Sorcerer has and have greatly increased their subclass flavor. If my Sorcerer makes you sad the suggestions you have provided won't do much to change the class. It sounds like you need to think a bit more about what about the PHB Sorcerer makes you sad. I've made that list and also listed how I fixed each of those. If you said "it's quite good, but needs a bit more flavor" then this would be different, but you've said it makes you sad which says that is isn't anywhere close to what you want.

Vogonjeltz

2017-08-29, 08:53 AM

My houserules do not contain rulings. I'm unsure what you're referring to.

If the question came up: Can I stop someone from interacting with an object in my square that I'm not actually holding?

You do have a ruling for that (albeit, in the guise of an additional rule now that it's codified rather than ad hoc).

Page 2: "Interacting with an Object" "Interacting with an object in an occupied square would allow the defender to try to stop you if they so choose. Use the shove rules."

In particular, I dislike this ruling/rule for two reason:
1) There is no defender per se, because no one is in possession of the item. With this particular example you could have many defenders provided they were each small enough to fit in the same square as the unpossessed object!

2) Allowing interaction when a party isn't directly attacked (in the colloquial sense) and without the use of a reaction. This is exactly what the Ready action is for, and allowing this is a mistake. Also, shove rules doesn't make sense as compared to the grab/disarm rules which already exist in the DMG.

Kryx

2017-08-29, 09:06 AM

If the question came up: Can I stop someone from interacting with an object in my square that I'm not actually holding?

You do have a ruling for that (albeit, in the guise of an additional rule now that it's codified rather than ad hoc).
This is a rule, not a ruling. The same as Overrun is a rule, not a ruling (variant rule in the DMG).

Page 2: "Interacting with an Object" "Interacting with an object in an occupied square would allow the defender to try to stop you if they so choose. Use the shove rules."
This feature is intended to work mechanically identically to Overrun and Tumble (DMG 272). Both of those abilities are contested ability checks (Athletics vs Athletics or Acrobatics vs Acrobatics).

1) There is no defender per se, because no one is in possession of the item.
But they are in that space - the same as Overrun/Tumble.

With this particular example you could have many defenders provided they were each small enough to fit in the same square as the unpossessed object!
I won't dispute that, though the same is true for Overrun/Tumble.

2) Allowing interaction when a party isn't directly attacked (in the colloquial sense) and without the use of a reaction.
See Overrun/Tumble. There is no reaction for the defender.

I'll update the wording to more closely mirror Overrun/Tumble instead of my lazy implementation.

A creature doesn't have to ready their action to block a doorway, nor should it to stand over a lever.

Ravinsild

2017-08-29, 09:10 AM

Classes vary quite a bit by how many core and subclass features they have. Bard and Paladin have a lot of core, but few subclass.

And that right there is why I made the Blackguard. Oathbreaker/Oath of Treachery/Oath of Conquest give me too much cognitive dissonance with the base Paladin core features. Makes no sense to me why an Oathbreaker would have Lay on Hands or be able to magically sense evil or cleanse diseases.

You can add my Blackguard to your rulebook if you want to or find it interesting.

Kryx

2017-08-29, 09:17 AM

And that right there is why I made the Blackguard. Oathbreaker/Oath of Treachery/Oath of Conquest give me too much cognitive dissonance with the base Paladin core features. Makes no sense to me why an Oathbreaker would have Lay on Hands or be able to magically sense evil or cleanse diseases.
Agreed with your conclusion that Blackguard doesn't work as a paladin subclass.

You can add my Blackguard to your rulebook if you want to or find it interesting.
I don't quite have the time for a full review right now. I'm spending too much time replying to forum posts lately. :S
I'd prefer to add a more fully reviewed product. Perhaps post it on reddit for feedback?

Ravinsild

2017-08-29, 09:19 AM

I don't quite have the time for a full review right now. I'm spending too much time replying to forum posts lately. :S
I'd prefer to add a more fully reviewed product. Perhaps post it on reddit for feedback?

That makes sense. I got a little feedback on reddit, and I've posted it on EN world, here, Reddit and maybe other places to hopefully get some good feedback on it's relative strength to it's lighter mirror the Paladin. At the end of the day hopefully they come out as exact equals so it's just a matter of "Dark Knight" or "Superman" archetype.

Kryx

2017-08-29, 09:32 AM

That makes sense. I got a little feedback on reddit, and I've posted it on EN world, here, Reddit and maybe other places to hopefully get some good feedback on it's relative strength to it's lighter mirror the Paladin
Awesome. Can you PM me the other threads in a few days? I play today and want to work more on my Magus and possibly Druid, but I'll probably have more time to look at it later in the week.

Mith

2017-08-29, 08:43 PM

Thinking Verdant through: I wonder if this subclass should be on a druid. Crossing over like this feels like it cheapens the differences between the classes...

I personally do not have a problem with this idea. The Celestial/Infernal bloodlines already have some connection to the Divine side of magic. Having a sorcerer that draws from the wilds works for me. Considering how extensive your work is, I think it fits right in.

One thing I recall from reading through is that the monk section is inconsistent with talking about the number of monastic traditions. I cannot give a good example as I am on my phone right now. Also, would Way of Lightening work better for your Electric Fist tradition?

FinnS

2017-08-29, 09:07 PM

Ok, I think we're past the point of cordiality here. Your statements are so pompous.

Come on.. you must think I'm really stupid to not have considered those factors. Again you probably didn't look at the math at all and yet have come in here guns blazing with your "math is bad" ideology. Your ideology is baseless as the core game of d&d and it's design is based on math. If you reject math as you claim to then you have no grounds to speak about game balance.

Saving throws are good against creatures with low ability scores... That's true for all spells and cantrips and yet all spells and cantrips are balanced on that idea already. Have you seen toll the dead? Or poison spray? You know what those cantrips do? They cause a saving throw, ignore cover, and do lots of damage (1d10 and 1d12 for the short range and con).

If you actually would look at the math of the game you'd know that Wis saves aren't a weak save for monsters. Disadvantage on 1 attack is great, but it performs poorly against larger groups of enemies as you're using your whole action to soft cc one creature. It excels vs bosses mostly. It also scales poorly as monsters get more attacks as you progress in levels.
It's a good spell at early levels, but isn't overpowered with a slight damage boost. It would be doing ~20% of martial damage with some very soft cc at the cost of your action.

Looks like you haven't looked at my changes. What a surprise.

Fire bolt's niche is range and damage. In my rules that has not changed. Fire bolt is still a very strong pick - the best for damage besides eb.

I don't care to be spoken to in the way you choose to conduct yourself and your ideology and obvious lack of desire to actually read my rules makes these conversations pointless. I won't be seeing your posts on the future.

Ok...so let me get this straight and by all means tell me if I'm missing anything.

First off, it's universally agreed that the biggest Balance issue in 5E is once again between Casters and Martials, especially at mid-high levels. Granted, it's not nearly as bad as it was in 3.5 but still more than enough to warrant serious conversations.
So first thing you did was nerf any Martial Feat that kept them respectable with Casters making that gap bigger.
I mean at this point I'm thinking ok well I'm sure he will do something to nerf Casters in an equivalent way.
Nope sorry, not only are you doing no such thing, you instead go the exact opposite way and give ALL Casters Meta-magic while also eliminating any need for anyone to ever play a Sorcerer ever again heh

I know, I know, we kinda already went over this earlier and you tried to rebut every little point piece by piece while completely ignoring the much more important and relevant over-all point. That point being that each individual change you made can be defended somewhat but all these changes together only serves to cause further separation between the Martials and the Casters. Maybe you're not doing it with a big hammer but it's still happening one nail at a time.
Here's the thing though, cause it gets even better...
We get to a point where you pretty much admit that Martial vs Caster balance is not that important to you. That you were more concerned with balancing Martials with Martials and Casters with Casters(except Sorc though heh) and that over-all balancing should come from having a high encounter/combat rate per long rest with lots of short rests. That that is probably the only way there will only be balance between them to which I agree with to a point.
BUT THEN...I'm going through the Cantrips and you buffed a lot of them too based on the premise that some of them don't keep up to Martial damage enough.
WTF! Like are you freaking kidding me now???

So now, not only are Martials doing less damage on average due to nerfed feats and Casters are doing even more with their newly acquired meta-magic options but on top of it all, when the agreed upon way of balancing both is instituted, that doesn't mean jack either because you have also buffed the Casters zero resource Cantrips so even after they have exhausted all the spell slots/resources, they're still competitive with Martial damage.
How is all of this lost on you over-all?

And you have the gall to call ME pompous because I'm pointing what should be some very obvious observations and conclusions?
Yeah...ok then.

Like are you actively trying to recreate the Martial-Caster gap from 3.5 or what?

I understand that Math is a part of it but so is Logic. I mean c'mon, how does one NOT see the big picture that all your little pictures are making?

Terra Reveene

2017-08-30, 01:41 AM

So first thing you did was nerf any Martial Feat that kept them respectable with Casters making that gap bigger.
I mean at this point I'm thinking ok well I'm sure he will do something to nerf Casters in an equivalent way.

He added them onto the weapons they buffed though. Martial characters literally get these feats at level 1 for free. He's also bugfed a good few martials. Fighters get maneuvers as a class feature now; they don't have to pick the battlemaster. They also get better scaling on second wind. Their maneuvers actually add damage onto the attack for the most part as well. Barbarians are no longer bonus action taxed from using rage, their rage damage is uppsed slightly at high level play. Monks have literally had their number of attacks they get for free increased by 1 unarmored strike and 1 additional extra attack. I could go on, and I'm not sure if you mentioned it anywhere, but did you only look at feats and all the casters? Did you forget to look at the martial classes? They got buffed. End of story.

Cantrip damage was and is really bad compared to martial damage. Buffing the terrible damage cantrips isn't a bad choice.

I think you had some point about running 6-8 encounters was really bad or something? I kind of agree on that. It should be closer to 4-6 or even 3-5 imo. But you can just scale down the caster slots/spell points until you get to the point you want to be. Spellcasting is very standardized, so it works just fine.

Kane0

2017-08-30, 01:51 AM

-Snip-

It appears you are disagreeing while also being disagreeable.
Like what you said has merit, it was just presented in a way that makes it hard to take as critique.

FinnS

2017-08-30, 01:58 AM

It appears you are disagreeing while also being disagreeable.
Like what you said has merit, it was just presented in a way that makes it hard to take as critique.

I tried nice earlier. My over-all point was ignored, I got ridiculed and accused of supposedly not knowing or understanding the math heh.

So now I'm going a little different route.

Terra Reveene

2017-08-30, 03:10 AM

I tried nice earlier. My over-all point was ignored, I got ridiculed and accused of supposedly not knowing or understanding the math heh.

So now I'm going a little different route.

You sound like you want to hurt somebody. You also ignored my notes, so I'll just assume you want nobody but Kryx to reply to you.

Kryx

2017-08-30, 03:29 AM

I personally do not have a problem with this idea. The Celestial/Infernal bloodlines already have some connection to the Divine side of magic. Having a sorcerer that draws from the wilds works for me. Considering how extensive your work is, I think it fits right in.
It could work if it was implemented better. Celestial and Infernal have very strong flavor. Verdant feels like "You're a druid in Sorcerer clothing that can turn into a tree". It needs more poison ivy influence or something to set it apart to be a viable subclass imo.

One thing I recall from reading through is that the monk section is inconsistent with talking about the number of monastic traditions. I cannot give a good example as I am on my phone right now.
I'll remove the list of traditions at the top. It isn't necessary to list them all there - only a few classes do.

Also, would Way of Lightening work better for your Electric Fist tradition?
I'm not sure what you mean. Are you suggesting renaming "Way of Electric Energy" to "Way of Lightning"? That was the working title, but I wasn't satisfied with it. It makes sense that a monk would study fire, earth, or water, but studing lightning feels weird. Though now that I type it I'm questioning this. Lightning may be better.

Did you forget to look at the martial classes? They got buffed. End of story.
He hasn't read my rules at all. The effort isn't worth it.

Cantrip damage was and is really bad compared to martial damage. Buffing the terrible damage cantrips isn't a bad choice.
Small clarification: cantrips as a whole haven't changed on their balance. The best damage cantrips (EB and fire bolt) are still the best damage cantrips and still compare to martial damage the same as RAW. Fire bolt does about 25% of a martial's damage or about 33% if you have +ability modifier on cantrips.
What was changed was the lower power cantrips were brought to be more in line with fire bolt. There are still tradeoffs in damage for conditions and other alterations, but overall the choice in which cantrip to choose provides far more competitive options from my perspective. Though I'm not perfect so if anyone thinks certain cantrips are off then we can discuss those cantrips in detail.

FinnS

2017-08-30, 01:05 PM

He hasn't read my rules at all. The effort isn't worth it.

Again, I did read them all.
So what if you buffed the Martial classes a bit? You did so after nerfing them and taking away their biggest damage options from GWF, SS and PAM. Then you did the exact opposite with Casters by giving them all Meta-magic and buffed their more exotic damage and condition causing Cantrips.
What part of you still nerfed Martials over-all damage and buffed Casters over-all damage is not being understood exactly?

I'm right and you know it.

Like not only did you take away the Power Attack option from GWF but you also took away the ability of its Bonus action attack to activate on any weapon, not just when using one with the Heavy property.

Basically, you took the Power Attack options away from the Martials and gave it to all the Casters.

MadBear

2017-08-30, 01:15 PM

Again, I did read them all.
So what if you buffed the Martial classes a bit? You did so after nerfing them and taking away their biggest damage options from GWF, SS and PAM. Then you did the exact opposite with Casters by giving them all Meta-magic and buffed their more exotic damage and condition causing Cantrips.
What part of you still nerfed Martials over-all damage and buffed Casters over-all damage is not being understood exactly?

I'm right and you know it.

more like you've been hostile, and we all know it.

hint: When you communicate like the way that you have, you shut down any chance of people considering your ideas seriously. I'd suggest you read up on the backfire effect a bit, and ways to help overcome it, if you're serious about changing any minds.

FinnS

2017-08-30, 01:43 PM

more like you've been hostile, and we all know it.

hint: When you communicate like the way that you have, you shut down any chance of people considering your ideas seriously. I'd suggest you read up on the backfire effect a bit, and ways to help overcome it, if you're serious about changing any minds.

Are you telling me that my posts back at #89 and #91 when I first brought this up were hostile?
I think not.

60-70 posts later of my point being ignored and being told I haven't read it all or looked at the DPR charts enough just might have something to do with my more aggressive style.

The bottomline is that under these rules it goes from:
Casters>Martials
to
Casters>>Martials

No hostility, no anger, that's just the cold hard logic and truth of it.

Mjolnirbear

2017-08-30, 03:01 PM

Are you telling me that my posts back at #89 and #91 when I first brought this up were hostile?
I think not.

60-70 posts later of my point being ignored and being told I haven't read it all or looked at the DPR charts enough just might have something to do with my more aggressive style.

The bottomline is that under these rules it goes from:
Casters>Martials
to
Casters>>Martials

No hostility, no anger, that's just the cold hard logic and truth of it.

So far I've seen several people address your comments.

You: Martials are worse than casters.
Kryx: Martials do the most consistent and best single-target damage in the game. Here's math.
You: math doesn't count!

You: taking away power from Martials and giving more power to casters!
Forum: actually he game more attacks to monks, made powerful weapon options available outside feats, made two-weapon fighting useful for everyone, and made cantrips consistent with the math
You: see he buffed casters!

I don't agree with all his changes. I don't like that he's sharing metamagic with all casters, though I understand both why (because he's nothing if not transparent) and how he fixes the sorcerer (ditto). But so far all you have done is disagree everything he or someone else addresses your complaints. He shows you balanced choices and you climb right back on your soapbox saying math doesn't matter, his explanations don't matter, but regardless of replies everyone is ignoring you. You even complained that he addressed your points one by one but ignored your bigger point!

Fine. We get it. You don't like his changes. So bugger off and let the rest of us enjoy the feedback and conversation.

Terra Reveene

2017-08-30, 03:27 PM

Some of the things I missed when looking at your sorcerer:

* Draconic Bloodline, right under the Draconic Ancestry table. The wording is a bit funky, it should read "You can speak, read, and write Draconic. In addition to this, you have advantage on Charisma checks you make to interact with dragons."
The infernal bloodline has something similar to this.

* Draconic Bloodline, Elemental Affinity, it says "no point cost". I assume this is just to note to others that your version doesn't cost any sorcery points, but I just want to point it out anyways in case it's not supposed to be there.

* Draconic Bloodline, Draconic Sight, last line should read "If you gain or already have darkvision from another source, its range is increased by 60 feet, up to a maximum of 120 feet." imo. It clarifies that spells like darkvision will actually give you 120 feet of darkvision. Right now, it's possible to confuse it with only applying to permanent effects that grant darkvision, whereas the intention is for it to increase the effects of temporary darkvision as well. It's not that necessary to change, I don't think many would get confused over this, but it's worth considering. I've been wrong about what people get confused over before. I've been wrong many times before, actually :d

* I don't like the "as the X spell" wording. It looks really bad to me. I'd much prefer "as though you were casting the X spell" wording. Your version does shorten the text down, but it looks ugly imo. It's like taking the sentence "I'm going to go to the store to pick up some eggs" down to "Going to store to pick up eggs". That's basically what it feels like to me when I'm reading it. It's very possible that that's just me though, so feel free to ignore it if you don't think your current wording looks bad at all (or if you prefer saving paper space by shortening down words. I'm all for shortening things down, but I personally wouldn't trade text efficiency for wording quality).

* Draconic Bloodline, Power of Wyrms, There are more like this, but I feel like the name is a bit silly. In fact, a good few of your features have either a really silly name or a name that is exactly the same as the spell it allows you to cast :D "Firebird" is another one. You look at the barbarian capstone and you go "hell yeah, this is my ultimate power!" because its name sounds epic. You look at the rogue capstone and go "haha!, now I have my 'I win' button!" and you feel very guilty of cheating, because its name and the way the feature functions don't align at all. You look at the Phoenix Sorcery capstone and you go "hell yeah, now... uuuh" because you're not quite sure how to feel about getting 'firebird'. (Suggested name change for it: Soul of the Phoenix. Because that trades all the sillyness for an equal amount of epicness. Who wouldn't want to gain the "soul of the phoenix" feature over the "firebird" feature? They're the exact same, but anyone who didn't know what either did and wasn't told what they did would probably pick the former because of its name.)
And the blindvision it gives should read "blindsight out to a range of 60 feet" to match the darkvision feature.

* Sorcerer, Any of the bloodlines/origins/Z Sorcery, I don't think the note under the bonus spells need any "X should do Y dabladges. See this thing" notes. If someone were to rip your sorcerer and use in your games, they'd probably know about your spell balance anyways. Either that or they won't care about those changes. I guess it doesn't actually hurt having it there though unless you need more page space... It's your call, I can see removing them being extra work that's not needed at all. On the other hand it does polish those few pages just a little bit more. Hell if you have a good reason to keep them there then it's actually wasted work.

* Infernal Bloodline, On Dark Wings, here's another example. I wouldn't call it a silly name, it's actually a really cool name, but it just doesn't sound like a feature. It sounds like the name of a book, or a chapter in a book. I wouldn't change it though. I'm not even sure why I'm mentioning this. I guess I'm... Picking on you now? Sorry. Not my intention. Or maybe it is actually. I'm not so sure. I'm not cutting this bit out though, you'll just have to accept that I think some of your naming is a bit silly :d

Now, I'm going to take a leap over the summoner. I've tried making my own summoner before; I made one based on yours, except it also had Kelpies (smaller eidolons that always follow you around) and had 4 eidolons of different sizes, starting at medium and going up one size for each additional eidolon (these were temporary summons). I still want to make that work somehow. Though I'm not sure how the numbers would look for it. It was tricky to balance, basically, but I could see having multiple eidolons being really cool. My version was a half caster, btw. Customizing your own creatures is far too fun to limit to just one imo.

Anyways, leaping over the summoner, straight to warlock. Here we go.

General Thoughts

* I love that you give an option for Intelligence warlocks. Imo warlocks should've been intelligence based to begin with (they're seekers of knowledge, damn it!). In my games you can use either Intelligence, Wisdom, or Charisma when interacting with characters. If you give an intelligent lie, it'd be an Intelligence (Deception) check, if you're a wise druid and you try to convince someone about a naturey thing not being harmful then you roll Wisdom (Persuasion) because they know you're very wise about these things because you're literally one of nature's protectors etc. I hate the idea that the Charisma stat is the "social stuff" stat and it shouldn't be that way. Ugh. Anyways, it's great that you're allowing this. I would personally just replace Charisma as their casting stat with Intelligence as it fits them way more than Charisma.
Hold on, I just need to... "Warlocks are driven by an insatiable need for knowledge and power." "knowledge". "charisma". Charisma = Knowledge? Then the bard is omniscient and the wizard is just a guy with a book. (yes I know it said power in there as well, but still...) Anyways, carrying on.

* I really like that you put Hex in as a class feature.
(question) I'm surprised you didn't do it for eldritch blast though. How come? I want to remember you saying you'd do that. Is it because of the difficulty of scaling it well with the main class? Or do you think it's fine as a cantrip?

* I really like how you made the pacts their own subclasses. I once did this and put it out on reddit... Man, people didn't like that at all. They went "why would you give warlock 2 subclasses? They shouldn't have two! There should only be one subclass!" I went "well, they're basically subclasses anyways. If you pick pact of the blade, you're picking up all the invocations for it anyways. So it's just a tax. It's essentially just a subclass.". Of course, it's not always the same for the other two pacts but... Let's be real, a lot of the pact boon invocations were just taxing players out of other options. I love this change. I knew I wasn't crazy.

* I really like that you made the invocations that were specific for EB apply to all cantrips. I've always hated EB spam. It's like 5e's version of 3.5e magic missiles (or so is my understanding, I haven't actually played 3.5e). It's just the best spell you can cast the vast majority of times.

Bugs

* Pact of the Tome, says "spear, read, and write your language". Should be "speak".

* Eldritch Invocations, Hex related, "hexed by your hex class feature" can be shortened to "hexed by your hex feature". Alrhough specifically mentioning that it's the class feature can remove confusion for people unfamiliar with your brew. So keeping it there isn't a bad idea.

* Eldritch Invocations, Caiphon's Beacon, should state the attribute scores you use with the related skill.
(question) have you ever thought about separating the attribute scores and skills? As mentioned before, I personally don't like forcing people to use certain skills with certain attribute scores, I think it should be largely open ended. What's your thoughts on it?
I realize now that they're skill proficiencies, so nevermind. Still, I'll keep it because of the question it spawned.

* Eldritch Invocations, Stars of the Seeker, "you can unleash the stars of the seeker through warlock cantrip", forgot an a between 'warlock' and 'cantrip'.

Suggestions

* Eldritch Invocations, Tomb of Levitus, I'm assuming the temp hp comes from the ice, so I think all of the effects should also end if you lose all of the temporary hit points.

Questions

* Why nerf the GOO's Awakened mind? Was telepathy between two creatures within 60 feet of one another too strong?

* Eldritch Invocations, Eldritch Spear, Why keep this specific to eldritch blast? Was it too strong when it allowed any damage cantrip to have 300 range?
Same with Kiss of Mephistopheles

* Eldritch Invocations, Frost Lance, "one or more times" means that any given creature can only be affected by the slow once, correct? It's beautiful wording, I'll give you that. Very elegant way of limiting warlocks stacking up on it on a single creature.

EDIT: The "Kryx's skills" list Persuasion as an option. I assume you haven't added it in again.

Mjolnirbear

2017-08-30, 06:06 PM

Sorcerous Restoration references a spellbook.

Pact of the Tome: spear instead of speak

Kryx

2017-08-30, 06:40 PM

So far I've seen several people address your comments.

You: Martials are worse than casters.
Kryx: Martials do the most consistent and best single-target damage in the game. Here's math.
You: math doesn't count!

You: taking away power from Martials and giving more power to casters!
Forum: actually he game more attacks to monks, made powerful weapon options available outside feats, made two-weapon fighting useful for everyone, and made cantrips consistent with the math
You: see he buffed casters!

I don't agree with all his changes. I don't like that he's sharing metamagic with all casters, though I understand both why (because he's nothing if not transparent) and how he fixes the sorcerer (ditto). But so far all you have done is disagree everything he or someone else addresses your complaints. He shows you balanced choices and you climb right back on your soapbox saying math doesn't matter, his explanations don't matter, but regardless of replies everyone is ignoring you. You even complained that he addressed your points one by one but ignored your bigger point!

Fine. We get it. You don't like his changes. So bugger off and let the rest of us enjoy the feedback and conversation.
I love this post. Thank you so much for putting into words exactly how I feel. It makes me feel significantly more sane. Thank you! <3

* Draconic Bloodline, right under the Draconic Ancestry table. The wording is a bit funky, it should read "You can speak, read, and write Draconic. In addition to this, you have advantage on Charisma checks you make to interact with dragons."
My wording matches RAW. Is there something wrong with the RAW wording?

You can speak, read, and write Draconic. Additionally, whenever you make a Charisma check when interacting with dragons, your proficiency bonus is doubled if it applies to the check.
You can speak, read, and write Draconic. Additionally, whenever you make a Charisma check when interacting with dragons, you have advantage on the check.
I'll add "add the check" which mine was missing, but the rest matches RAW and seems to work from what I can see.

* Draconic Bloodline, Elemental Affinity, it says "no point cost". I assume this is just to note to others that your version doesn't cost any sorcery points, but I just want to point it out anyways in case it's not supposed to be there.
It's just there for indicating a change. I'll highlight the part that changed instead.

* Draconic Bloodline, Draconic Sight, last line should read "If you gain or already have darkvision from another source, its range is increased by 60 feet, up to a maximum of 120 feet." imo. It clarifies that spells like darkvision will actually give you 120 feet of darkvision. Right now, it's possible to confuse it with only applying to permanent effects that grant darkvision, whereas the intention is for it to increase the effects of temporary darkvision as well. It's not that necessary to change, I don't think many would get confused over this, but it's worth considering. I've been wrong about what people get confused over before. I've been wrong many times before, actually :d
The wording I use is from "Goggles of the Night" on DMG 172.
I will change it to "you gain darkvision out to a range of 60 feet. If you already have darkvision, its range is increased by 60 feet, to a maximum 120 feet."
If all versions of darkvision said this and were consistent then we wouldn't have a problem. I'd add the same on the darkvision spell.

* I don't like the "as the X spell" wording. It looks really bad to me. I'd much prefer "as though you were casting the X spell" wording.
I'll change it to "as if you were casting the X spell"

* Draconic Bloodline, Power of Wyrms, There are more like this, but I feel like the name is a bit silly. In fact, a good few of your features have either a really silly name or a name that is exactly the same as the spell it allows you to cast :D "Firebird" is another one. You look at the barbarian capstone and you go "hell yeah, this is my ultimate power!" because its name sounds epic. You look at the rogue capstone and go "haha!, now I have my 'I win' button!" and you feel very guilty of cheating, because its name and the way the feature functions don't align at all. You look at the Phoenix Sorcery capstone and you go "hell yeah, now... uuuh" because you're not quite sure how to feel about getting 'firebird'. (Suggested name change for it: Soul of the Phoenix. Because that trades all the sillyness for an equal amount of epicness. Who wouldn't want to gain the "soul of the phoenix" feature over the "firebird" feature? They're the exact same, but anyone who didn't know what either did and wasn't told what they did would probably pick the former because of its name.)
Fully agreed that names are very important. I'm usually pretty decent at naming things, but it's obvious that some of my Sorcerer feature names were a result of laziness.
Soul of the Phoenix is significantly better than "Firebird". Please rename all of my poorly named features.

And the blindvision it gives should read "blindsight out to a range of 60 feet" to match the darkvision feature.
I'm not sure all versions of vision should stack. Thoughts?

* Sorcerer, Any of the bloodlines/origins/Z Sorcery, I don't think the note under the bonus spells need any "X should do Y dabladges. See this thing" notes. If someone were to rip your sorcerer and use in your games, they'd probably know about your spell balance anyways. Either that or they won't care about those changes. I guess it doesn't actually hurt having it there though unless you need more page space... It's your call, I can see removing them being extra work that's not needed at all. On the other hand it does polish those few pages just a little bit more. Hell if you have a good reason to keep them there then it's actually wasted work.
I removed the damage amount for flame strike a bit ago. I'll remove it from others.
I think I'll keep the reference to spell balance available to people. As you said above "I've been wrong about what people get confused over before". In my profession working with UI and UX design I've learned that small reminders and availability of the information matters a lot. It doesn't hurt much to have a link to spell balance there I think.

you'll just have to accept that I think some of your naming is a bit silly :d
Help me rename them! It's hard to have such an outside perspective and see things with fresh eyes. I've worked on my houserules (especially the Sorcerer) for years now - my eyes are fully contaminated.

I'm going to take a leap over the summoner.
I would as well. While I enjoyed the process and am fairly ok with the results it's just not a class for me (except maybe the synthesist).

straight to warlock.
I'll take a look at these tomorrow - I need to head to bed. Thanks again for the through review!!

Sorcerous Restoration references a spellbook.

Pact of the Tome: spear instead of speak
I will fix both of these. Thank you for pointing them out to me.

Mith

2017-08-30, 09:28 PM

Responses in

It could work if it was implemented better. Celestial and Infernal have very strong flavor. Verdant feels like "You're a druid in Sorcerer clothing that can turn into a tree". It needs more poison ivy influence or something to set it apart to be a viable subclass imo.

I'll remove the list of traditions at the top. It isn't necessary to list them all there - only a few classes do.

I'm not sure what you mean. Are you suggesting renaming "Way of Electric Energy" to "Way of Lightning"? That was the working title, but I wasn't satisfied with it. It makes sense that a monk would study fire, earth, or water, but studying lightning feels weird. Though now that I type it I'm questioning this. Lightning may be better.

Verdant Bloodline might need to be changed, but I don't feel it needs to be scrapped quite yet. I can give it a read over again and see if I come up with suggestions if you want.

As for the "Way of Lightning", that was my idea. I am not always clear when working on my phone. In my head, I picture the schools of the Air (Wind) and Lightning to be close as they are connected to idea of Storm. As for general wording, I can read through the section again and see what was actually bothering me. It has been a while since I have read through them.

I might have a few ideas when I sit down and read through the rules again. Thanks for making the rule set available for viewing!

Edit: re reading the monk section, at the beginning, you say 9 traditions, but later in the same section you say "honour the four traditions".

Kryx

2017-08-31, 02:15 PM

* I really like that you put Hex in as a class feature.
(question) I'm surprised you didn't do it for eldritch blast though. How come? I want to remember you saying you'd do that. Is it because of the difficulty of scaling it well with the main class? Or do you think it's fine as a cantrip?
There isn't really a compelling reason to do so. It functions fine as a cantrip besides the dip issue which my changes lessen.

They went "why would you give warlock 2 subclasses?
Oh no! We'll see what others think. Perhaps it was a matter of implementation. ;)

* I really like that you made the invocations that were specific for EB apply to all cantrips. I've always hated EB spam. It's like 5e's version of 3.5e magic missiles (or so is my understanding, I haven't actually played 3.5e). It's just the best spell you can cast the vast majority of times.
EB is still the best possible cantrip and option, but this helps somewhat.

* Pact of the Tome, says "spear, read, and write your language". Should be "speak".

* Eldritch Invocations, Hex related, "hexed by your hex class feature" can be shortened to "hexed by your hex feature".

* Eldritch Invocations, Caiphon's Beacon, should state the attribute scores you use with the related skill.

* Eldritch Invocations, Stars of the Seeker, "you can unleash the stars of the seeker through warlock cantrip", forgot an a between 'warlock' and 'cantrip'.
Fixed

* Eldritch Invocations, Tomb of Levitus, I'm assuming the temp hp comes from the ice, so I think all of the effects should also end if you lose all of the temporary hit points.
"These effects all end when the ice melts." is already there

* Why nerf the GOO's Awakened mind? Was telepathy between two creatures within 60 feet of one another too strong?
It's not a nerf. It's a wording change to adhere to RAI of Crawford: https://twitter.com/jeremyecrawford/status/505105541136674817

* Eldritch Invocations, Eldritch Spear, Why keep this specific to eldritch blast? Was it too strong when it allowed any damage cantrip to have 300 range?
Avoid complexity of saying "increase range by X" and avoid renaming.

Same with Kiss of Mephistopheles
changed to damage with a cantrip.

* Eldritch Invocations, Frost Lance, "one or more times" means that any given creature can only be affected by the slow once, correct? It's beautiful wording, I'll give you that. Very elegant way of limiting warlocks stacking up on it on a single creature.
Correct

The "Kryx's skills" list Persuasion as an option. I assume you haven't added it in again.
Persuasion is indeed a skill.

(question) have you ever thought about separating the attribute scores and skills? As mentioned before, I personally don't like forcing people to use certain skills with certain attribute scores, I think it should be largely open ended. What's your thoughts on it?
I realize now that they're skill proficiencies, so nevermind. Still, I'll keep it because of the question it spawned.[/QUOTE]

Kryx

2017-08-31, 02:28 PM

Verdant Bloodline might need to be changed, but I don't feel it needs to be scrapped quite yet. I can give it a read over again and see if I come up with suggestions if you want.
I removed it for now. It's not sufficient. Here it is:
### Verdant Bloodline
Your progenitors infused themselves with raw plant life, binding it into their own tissue and passing it down to their literal seed, giving you innate communion with nature.

Verdant sorcerers often find themselves living amongst nature, often by themselves.

#### Verdant Origins
Your verdant origins grant you additional spells known which are included in the Spells Known column of the Sorcerer Table. These spells cannot be replaced.

##### Verdant Bloodline Bonus Spells
| Sorcerer Level | Spells |
|:----:|:-------------|
| Cantrip | *thorn whip* |
| 1st | *entangle*, *goodberry* |
| 3rd | *lesser restoration*, *spike growth* |
| 5th | *plant growth*, *speak with plants* |
| 7th | [*conjure plants*](https://drive.google.com/open?id=0BxGh_mU9ihaPbWFlck1kSEd4Z3M), *control water* |
| 9th | *commune with nature*, *tree stride* |

#### Brambled Skin
Starting at 1st level, immediately before or after you cast a spell of 1st level or higher on your tun, you can cause a your skin to take on a rough, bark-like appearance for 1 minute. While your skin is transformed your armor can’t be less than 16.

At 3rd level, a host of wooden thorns burst from your skin while it is transformed by this feature. Whenever a creature within 5 feet of you hits you with a melee attack while your skin is transformed in this way, the thorns pierce the attacker for 1d8 piercing damage.

At 10th level this damage increases to 2d8.

#### Regrowth
At 3rd level, immediately before or after you cast a spell of 1st level or higher on your turn, you can regain hit points equal to the spell level + your Constitution modifier.

#### Photosynthesis
Also at 3rd level, you feed upon nature’s raw essence which provides you with life-sustaining nourishment. You also need only to sleep for 2 hours to gain the benefits of a long rest.

This feature doesn’t function where nature has been replaced by construction, such as in dungeons and towns.

#### Grasping Vines
Starting at 6th level, you can use your action to cast [*grasping vines*](https://drive.google.com/open?id=0BxGh_mU9ihaPbWFlck1kSEd4Z3M) without expending a spell slot.

Once you use this feature, you can’t use it again until you finish a long rest unless you expend a 4th level spell slot or higher to use it again.

#### Massmorph
At 10th level, you can transform willing creatures within 60 feet as the *polymorph* spell. You can transform 3 willing creatures who have a challenge rating or level of 2 or higher each into an Awakened Tree, or any 10 willing creatures each into an Awakened Shrub. The transformation lasts for up to 1 hour or until you lose your concentration (as if you were casting a concentration spell).

Once you use this feature, you can’t use it again until you finish a long rest unless you expend a 4th level spell slot or higher to use it again.

#### Grounded
At 14th level, you can extend roots into soil for up to 1 minute. Your speed is reduced to 5 feet, but your armor can’t be less than 18 and you have advantage on ability checks and saving throws to avoid forced movement or the prone condition. You also gain tremorsense 30 feet. You can extract your roots from the ground on your turn.

You can use this feature a number of times equal to your Charisma modifier (a minimum of once). You regain all expended uses when you finish a long rest.

#### Verdant Ground
Also at 14th level, when you become grounded you can regain 4d8 hit points.

Once you use this feature, you can’t use it again until you finish a short or long rest.

#### Thorn Wall
Beginning at 18th level, you can conjure a wall of tough, pliable, tangled brush bristling with needle sharp thorns as *wall of thorns* as an 8th level spell without expending a spell slot.

Once you use this feature, you can’t use it again until you finish a long rest.

#### Shepherd of the Trees
At 20th level, your verdant heritage fully manifests. Your armor can never be less than 18. In addition you gain immunity to paralysis and poison, and you gain tremorsense 30 feet.

As for the "Way of Lightning", that was my idea. I am not always clear when working on my phone. In my head, I picture the schools of the Air (Wind) and Lightning to be close as they are connected to idea of Storm.
Air vs Lightning:

Monks of the Way of Air follow a tradition that values peace and freedom. These monks are typically found in small enclaves, detached from worldly problems. Air temples teach pacifism and that the key to airbending is flexibility and finding and following the path of least resistance.

Monks of the Way of Lightning draw their power from charged particles within themselves and the world around them. Lightning temples teach monks how to harness this energy.
Very different subclasses.

I might have a few ideas when I sit down and read through the rules again. Thanks for making the rule set available for viewing!
Let me know if you find anything or have some ideas.

re reading the monk section, at the beginning, you say 9 traditions, but later in the same section you say "honour the four traditions".
I don't speak british english!
I've removed the number of traditions from those phrases.

Terra Reveene

2017-08-31, 02:41 PM

Oh no! We'll see what others think. Perhaps it was a matter of implementation. ;)

The same as you. Almost. Instead of presenting it like a subclass, I just put the additional benefits you gained at the end of it, stating which levels you gained what benefits. I guess if I made it look more like a subclass people wouldn't be as mad about it? I have no idea honestly. I remember I made Pact of the Chain pretty stupid though, so maybe that's what triggered the "don't make pact boon a subclass" responses.
At any rate I'm glad it worked out for you and the guy who made the original thing. Gratz.

"These effects all end when the ice melts." is already there

I gather up a bunch of things that catch my eye and remove them as when I take a second look. Somehow I missed this though.

Persuasion is indeed a skill.

Why not just split up the Manipulation skill then? I liked how you put all of the skills that did basically the same thing in just slightly different fluff into the same skill. It seems odd that you'd seperate Persuasion in particular?

I realize now that they're skill proficiencies, so nevermind. Still, I'll keep it because of the question it spawned.

This bit was oddly cut off, I'm not sure what's going on here. I'm assuming this was meant to be deleted, though just in case you had more things to say I'll leave this here as a reminder.

Kryx

2017-08-31, 02:48 PM

Why not just split up the Manipulation skill then? I liked how you put all of the skills that did basically the same thing in just slightly different fluff into the same skill. It seems odd that you'd seperate Persuasion in particular?
Pesuasion covers gathering information and persuading people
Manipualtion covers lying to people, disguises, and intimidation.

The difference is negatively influence vs positively influence.

There is plenty of room in each skill to warrant them not being combined. By the logic I used before to combine them into Influence I could also combine Perception and Insight into one skill. These skills are already good enough - they don't need to be combined.

(question) have you ever thought about separating the attribute scores and skills? As mentioned before, I personally don't like forcing people to use certain skills with certain attribute scores, I think it should be largely open ended. What's your thoughts on it?
I don't subscribe to the thought that all skills can be achieved via all ability scores. If you have ability scores then they should matter. If you want a game without ability scores then I'd support that, but essentially allowing all ability scores on all skills? What's the point?

Strength might work for Manipulation (Intimidate) in limited cases, but the results would be very different than using charisma.

Mjolnirbear

2017-08-31, 03:33 PM

Pesuasion covers gathering information and persuading people
Manipualtion covers lying to people, disguises, and intimidation.

The difference is negatively influence vs positively influence.

I disagree. It can't be about your motivation. If you're lying, it's manipulation, but if you're telling your kid that santa will be here soon, it's persuasion? No skill is inherently moral or immoral.

And you can't make a moral judgement about whether an action is inherently positive or negative. Gathering information about you're enemies weakness is positive? What if you are doing it for nefarious purposes?

I have the social skills as per raw and I explain it as method. They all influence and manipulate people. The difference is how they do it.

Deception: influence through falsehood
Intimidate: influence through fear
Persuasion: influence through convincing

Bribery? Persuasion. Blackmail? Fear. Logic? Persuasion. Appeal to authority? Well that could be any of them.

Kryx

2017-08-31, 03:40 PM

Deception: influence through falsehood
Intimidate: influence through fear
Persuasion: influence through convincing.
It's not based on morality, but method as you say.
Fear and and falsehoods are very similar. Example: a priest could intimidate you with words about dying to his God, but if a non-priest did the same thing it would be deception?
The split of 3 is more subjective than the 2 split that I have imo.

I agree that lying and intimidation could be used to gather information. I listed gather information as a separate function to clarify the possible uses, not to say that the others couldn't use it. I can try to clean that up.

Mjolnirbear

2017-08-31, 04:17 PM

It's not based on morality, but method as you say.
Fear and and falsehoods are very similar. Example: a priest could intimidate you with words about dying to his God, but if a non-priest did the same thing it would be deception?
The split of 3 is more subjective than the 2 split that I have imo.

I agree that lying and intimidation could be used to gather information. I listed gather information as a separate function to clarify the possible uses, not to say that the others couldn't use it. I can try to clean that up.

The same overlap can happen with survival and nature, or religion and Arcana, or athletics and Acrobatics, or history and, well, everything else. But maybe you addressed that, I admit I only skimmed the skills section.

When you get right down to it, all social interaction is manipulative. Santa is a con job to try to reward your kid for good behaviour. Participation trophies attempt to distract a kid from his failure. RL religion is FULL of manipulation, and missionaries are 'doing God's work' and trying to get people to convert. Trying to bribe your brother to help you move or getting the boss a coffee every morning or 'dressing for the career you want, not the career you have'... In the end, we all manipulate and are manipulated, it's part of being social creatures.

It's why yours seems wrong to me. You described them as positive or negative ways to manipulate, but they're not to me. They're just ways to get someone to do, say, or believe something you want.

But we can agree to disagree on this hehe

PhantomSoul

2017-08-31, 04:20 PM

You described them as positive or negative ways to manipulate, but they're not to me. They're just ways to get someone to do, say, or believe something you want.

If it helps, I interpreted Kryx's use of "positive" and "negative" more like for rewards: a bribe is offering to give a positive reward to get a desired outcome, whereas blackmail is offering to give a negative reward ( = punishment) to get a desired outcome.

Kryx

2017-08-31, 04:28 PM

Terra Reveene

2017-08-31, 04:30 PM

I don't subscribe to the thought that all skills can be achieved via all ability scores. If you have ability scores then they should matter. If you want a game without ability scores then I'd support that, but essentially allowing all ability scores on all skills? What's the point?

I'm not saying you should allow all ability scores for all skills. What I'm saying is that some skills could use the option of using a different ability score than the stated one. Perhaps add in more options. My point was that if you removed the limitation of using only Charisma for intimidation checks, then that'd open up more opportunities for your players to play to their strengths. If you force the charisma 6 strength 24 barbarian to make an intimidation check using charisma, then he'll be disappointed. And he won't try to intimidate anyone again, because what's the point? The scrawny strength 4 constitution 4 charisma 20 bard is going to be far more successful than he'll ever be anyways. Just leave all social encounters to him.
And that goes for a lot of skills. And a lot of ability scores.
I hope this clarifies things.

Also, I don't see how abandoning the ability scores would ever work?

Strength might work for Manipulation (Intimidate) in limited cases, but the results would be very different than using charisma.

Of course it would be different. That's the point. And as said above, not having this as a default option detracts from the game.

Ravinsild

2017-08-31, 04:31 PM

If it helps, I interpreted Kryx's use of "positive" and "negative" more like for rewards: a bribe is offering to give a positive reward to get a desired outcome, whereas blackmail is offering to give a negative reward ( = punishment) to get a desired outcome.

In other words: Ask your dog to do a trick. One person might whack the dog if they do it wrong but do nothing if they do it right? The other will give them a treat if they do it right and do nothing if they do it wrong?

PhantomSoul

2017-08-31, 04:40 PM

In other words: Ask your dog to do a trick. One person might whack the dog if they do it wrong but do nothing if they do it right? The other will give them a treat if they do it right and do nothing if they do it wrong?

Exactly! Obviously this is theorycraft style, but it's the general idea.

In the case of the skills:
Deception: Provide negative information to get someone to do what you want by misinforming about the current situation or about the expected outcomes.
Persuasion (here Manipulation): Provide positive information to get someone to do what you want by telling people truth about

Intimidation is kind of separate in that it's a threat of a different sort, and which one it goes into to me depends on whether it's an empty threat (Deception) or a truthful one (Kryx's Manipulation). I think the assumption is that it's true that you would/could do whatever you're using to intimidate the person, in which case the default would be Persuasion.

Mjolnirbear

2017-08-31, 04:41 PM

Exactly this.

OK I get your POV now. What about rewardless interactions? I try to convince you using logic? Or appeal to you to do the right thing?

Ravinsild

2017-08-31, 04:45 PM

Exactly! Obviously this is theorycraft style, but it's the general idea.

In the case of the skills:
Deception: Provide negative information to get someone to do what you want by misinforming about the current situation or about the expected outcomes.
Persuasion (here Manipulation): Provide positive information to get someone to do what you want by telling people truth about

Intimidation is kind of separate in that it's a threat of a different sort, and which one it goes into to me depends on whether it's an empty threat (Deception) or a truthful one (Kryx's Manipulation). I think the assumption is that it's true that you would/could do whatever you're using to intimidate the person, in which case the default would be Persuasion.

Well I think intimidation can often be categorized as "coercion" which is usually "manipulation" because it's basically "Do this or else I hurt you" whether it's true or not.

PhantomSoul

2017-08-31, 04:46 PM

OK I get your POV now. What about rewardless interactions? I try to convince you using logic? Or appeal to you to do the right thing?

Assuming the premises of that logic are true or that the arguments for why the right thing is right are true, Persuasion/Manipulation I assume. (I do prefer the term "Persuasion" because it's more neutral about the motives and focuses a little more on the aspect of changing your mind/opinion.)

In a way, all Deception Checks are also Persuasion/Manipulation Checks because you're first faking that the deceptive information is true, and then you're persuading that based on that they should do something. (A Persuasion Check is also a convince+persuade check in theory if you're giving the person information that they didn't already know/believe.)

Well I think intimidation can often be categorized as "coercion" which is usually "manipulation" because it's basically "Do this or else I hurt you" whether it's true or not.

That's why I prefer the original term; it's a bit more neutral. The categorisation of Intimidation as variable (but by default probably Manipulation/Persuasion) was based on the logic of the distinction so far (true information vs. false information), not based on common synonyms. (I'm treating it as a technical in-game term, like how "Action" has a game-specific meaning, and so using the fact that "deed" is a synonym of "action" would be an odd argument for something about in-game Actions.)

(Edited to remove resulting double-post)

Kryx

2017-08-31, 05:47 PM

If you force the charisma 6 strength 24 barbarian to make an intimidation check using charisma, then he'll be disappointed. And he won't try to intimidate anyone again, because what's the point?
If you open up intimidate to strength what is the point of charisma? Encouraging dump stats by not making ability scores meaningful is a flaw of 5e and I don't want to expand it.
It's the same as people allowing climb with dexterity: it significantly weakens strength as an ability score.

Allowing any ability in my experience leads to abuse of players avoiding their dump stats.

Tl;Dr: ability scores should matter. Allowing different ones on different skills heavily skews the balance of ability scores, allowing for more dump stats.

Persuasion (here Manipulation)
My persuasion is normal + explicit gather info.
My manipulation is deception + disguise + intimidation.

OK I get your POV now. What about rewardless interactions? I try to convince you using logic? Or appeal to you to do the right thing?
Right thing is still a positive reward mechanism so persuasion.
Logic would be persuasion: "Typically, you use persuasion when acting in good faith"

Mjolnirbear

2017-08-31, 06:09 PM

If you open up intimidate to strength what is the point of charisma? Encouraging dump stats by not making ability scores meaningful is a flaw of 5e and I don't want to expand it.
It's the same as people allowing climb with dexterity: it significantly weakens strength as an ability score.

Allowing any ability in my experience leads to abuse of players avoiding their dump stats.

Tl;Dr: ability scores should matter. Allowing different ones on different skills heavily skews the balance of ability scores, allowing for more dump stats.

My persuasion is normal + explicit gather info.
My manipulation is deception + disguise + intimidation.

Right thing is still a positive reward mechanism so persuasion.
Logic would be persuasion: "Typically, you use persuasion when acting in good faith"

I still disagree with it, but I better understand it. Thanks

Theodoxus

2017-08-31, 07:28 PM

I'm more in line with Mjolnirbear in regards to a more (not complete) universality of skill / attribute use. If the player can make a cogent argument as to why their Intimidate check should be based on Int instead of Cha, I'll let them have it.

Some things just won't work, no matter how they try to manipulate me - no, Johnny, you can't use Int to climb a wall - I don't care how much you study the features of the wall, it's still going to require physical exertion.

I especially allow alternate attributes to work for Tool proficiencies. Navigation, for example, might be Wis based (watching the sun move) or Int based (using a mechanical devise) or Dex based (moving a rudder) or Str based (tacking a sail against the wind)... probably not Con based or Cha based, but maybe...

Does it aggravate dump stats? Maybe - but then, between BA and a min of 8 for PB, and stats are just mechanical measurements anyway, there's really no such thing as a dump stat in my view.

FinnS

2017-09-01, 03:48 PM

I love this post. Thank you so much for putting into words exactly how I feel. It makes me feel significantly more sane. Thank you! <3

I saw that you have all the DPR/KPR charts for 5E standard. Did you redo them for all your changes? If so, can you provide them please.

EDIT: Nevermind, I see them now.

FinnS

2017-09-01, 04:58 PM

Ok so from what I'm seeing Martial total DPR/KPR (Removal of the -5/+10 GWF/SS feats and PAM bonus vs greater accessibility for all Martial classes to full TWF) is slightly down while Caster DPR/KPR is about the same.

That of course doesn't include Metamagic though which makes a huge difference.

But first I have a question...when a Caster takes the Metamagic Feat multiple times, do they get another 3 MM points every time? By your RAW, that seems to be the case.

I'm going to move on assuming this^^

So...example, a Martial character that wants to just get their full Prof Mod to their AC for a single attack/round they have to spend 2 Feats.
A Caster can spend those same 2 Feats on Metamagic and have 1-2 Greaters and/or 2-4 Minors and 6 MM points.
Hmmmm...that sounds like an even tradeoff...

Now since all your ability scores go up +1 at 5, 10 & 15, a Caster has no reason to spend their ASI/Feats on said ability scores so they are free to spend all 10 of them on Metamagic or up to 9 if you rule that they can't take it if they already know all the MM options and can't just do it to get another 3 MM points. All MM options and 27 MM points by level 19 (Level 16 if Human).
So JUST by level 6 any non-Human Caster could have 1-3 Greater and/or 4-6 Minor MM options and 9 MM points (1-4 and/or 6-7 with 12 MM points as Human).

EVERY Caster just became a Loremaster, sounds completely balanced and wonderful to me :smallamused:

But hey, what do I know, I'm just an angry, pompous person that is being disagreeable for the sake of being disagreeable heh
Wait a minute, maybe I'm not angry, maybe, just maybe I'm frustrated at this point because people keep defending this "all Casters get metamagic" option.
Yeah, just ignore that it puts the game back into 3.5 levels of Martial vs Caster imbalance.

Mjolnirbear

2017-09-01, 08:44 PM

You're concentrating on the bonus attack and - 5/+10.

You know what Great Weapon has now? An extra attack that doesn't require a bonus action.

Grappler is available to all martials.

Flanking and called shots are both possible. So are healing surges. (healing surges? Less reliant on casters!)

Grappling is a more powerful option. Savage Attacker is straight up advantage on damage for all martials. Martials have better ranged options (see bow expert and fast loader) and *only* martials have the option for dual-wielding weapons larger than light.

The - 5/+10 was straight up broken. (math, remember that?) Almost every other change is a buff. He already told you why he removed them. If you don't agree, that's fine. I've disagreed with him several times. But you haven't added anything new to the argument.

Edit in response to your edit: no, not everyone defends it (giving all casters metamagic). I dislike it and told him so. End of. There is no point hashing it over and over again. This is why some of us are finding it disagreeable.

FinnS

2017-09-01, 09:12 PM

MadBear

2017-09-01, 11:06 PM

And if you have been reading my posts you would already know that the slightly lowered overall damage for Martials was never the main issue.
It was that Martials took a slight nerf while Casters got a massively overpowered buff getting MM and another slight buff on their utility Cantrips.

The amount of crap I've taken pointing out this massively obvious imbalance is ridiculous and you wonder why I'm a wee bit testy at this point.

perhaps if you didn't add so much hyperbole to your statements, people would be more likely to listen. For instance, let me rewrite your statement without the hyperbole, and show how to make it so others are more likely to be amendable to answering it seriously.

"I've noticed that even using the dpr/math chart martial's are dealing slightly less damage then they used to with the -5/+10 in place. I also notice that casters are getting a small buff with their cantrips, and another buff with being able to get MM with feats. Since there already exists martial/caster divide in 5e, won't your changes just push that divide further? Or am I missing something that helps balance this?".

(and actually, I think this is a fairly reasonable point to make/ask. It's just buried in over the top language, hence the whole backfire effect thing).

FinnS

2017-09-01, 11:55 PM

perhaps if you didn't add so much hyperbole to your statements, people would be more likely to listen. For instance, let me rewrite your statement without the hyperbole, and show how to make it so others are more likely to be amendable to answering it seriously.

"I've noticed that even using the dpr/math chart martial's are dealing slightly less damage then they used to with the -5/+10 in place. I also notice that casters are getting a small buff with their cantrips, and another buff with being able to get MM with feats. Since there already exists martial/caster divide in 5e, won't your changes just push that divide further? Or am I missing something that helps balance this?".

(and actually, I think this is a fairly reasonable point to make/ask. It's just buried in over the top language, hence the whole backfire effect thing).

Yeah, welcome to 5 pages ago.

MadBear

2017-09-02, 12:41 AM

Yeah, welcome to 5 pages ago.

Sure, and notice 5 pages ago, when you pointed out the Scimitar damage issue, there was no problem. Then when you pointed out the Dex vs Str, your point was thoroughly addressed, even if you disagree with it in the end. So you weren't ignored at all.

It was in the 3rd page, where your statesments really turned. And in that, you became much more hostile in your language, which again, I'm just going to point out didn't help anything, and began to blunt any impact you might have made.

(On the side note, I do see that Kryx's compacted saves, do in fact hurt the potency of casters a bit).

Mjolnirbear

2017-09-02, 02:35 AM

And if you have been reading my posts you would already know that the slightly lowered overall damage for Martials was never the main issue.
It was that Martials took a slight nerf while Casters got a massively overpowered buff getting MM and another slight buff on their utility Cantrips.

The amount of crap I've taken pointing out this massively obvious imbalance is ridiculous and you wonder why I'm a wee bit testy at this point.

Massively overpowered? Take the feat once, and half the options can only be used once a day. Once you can quicken a spell. Once you can heighten it. And you can't change the option unless you want to take another feat.

Take savage attacker once, and you reroll your damage all day, every day, until you run out of attacks (hint: martials never run out of attacks).

I could go on, but really, you are turning this into a martials vs casters argument, which has been done to death. We have already derailed the OP's thread with irrelevance. I refuse to engage you further. Fight your war somewhere else, soldier.

FinnS

2017-09-02, 02:47 AM

Sure, and notice 5 pages ago, when you pointed out the Scimitar damage issue, there was no problem. Then when you pointed out the Dex vs Str, your point was thoroughly addressed, even if you disagree with it in the end. So you weren't ignored at all.

It was in the 3rd page, where your statesments really turned. And in that, you became much more hostile in your language, which again, I'm just going to point out didn't help anything, and began to blunt any impact you might have made.

(On the side note, I do see that Kryx's compacted saves, do in fact hurt the potency of casters a bit).

Not when they're twinning Magic Missiles at will or imposing disadvantage on saves whenever they want through a ridiculously fat pool of MM points.

And listen, say what you want but my biggest issue from the beginning with his rules has been the massive imbalance increase between Martials vs Casters.
Call it hyperbole if you want but that example of his MM feats is very real and just as ridiculous as it appears.

skaddix

2017-09-02, 03:26 AM

Meh you want Martials to not suck port over Path of War sure it still lagged behind casters especially in utility and versatility but you at least got to feel like a badass and do something besides tripping in combat.

Kryx

2017-09-02, 06:53 AM

"I've noticed that even using the dpr/math chart martial's are dealing slightly less damage then they used to with the -5/+10 in place. I also notice that casters are getting a small buff with their cantrips, and another buff with being able to get MM with feats. Since there already exists martial/caster divide in 5e, won't your changes just push that divide further? Or am I missing something that helps balance this?".
While this sounds reasonable on the surface I think other posters have outlined why it isn't reasonable once a person digs in to the details of my changes:

He's also buffed a good few martials. Fighters get maneuvers as a class feature now; they don't have to pick the battlemaster. They also get better scaling on second wind. Their maneuvers actually add damage onto the attack for the most part as well. Barbarians are no longer bonus action taxed from using rage, their rage damage is uppsed slightly at high level play. Monks have literally had their number of attacks they get for free increased by 1 unarmored strike and 1 additional extra attack. I could go on, and I'm not sure if you mentioned it anywhere, but did you only look at feats and all the casters? Did you forget to look at the martial classes? They got buffed. End of story.

Cantrip damage was and is really bad compared to martial damage. Buffing the terrible damage cantrips isn't a bad choice.

You know what Great Weapon has now? An extra attack that doesn't require a bonus action.
Grappler is available to all martials.
Flanking and called shots are both possible. So are healing surges. (healing surges? Less reliant on casters!)
Grappling is a more powerful option.
Savage Attacker is straight up advantage on damage for all martials.
Martials have better ranged options (see bow expert and fast loader) and *only* martials have the option for dual-wielding weapons larger than light.

Take the feat once, and half the options can only be used once a day. Once you can quicken a spell. Once you can heighten it. And you can't change the option unless you want to take another feat.

Take savage attacker once, and you reroll your damage all day, every day, until you run out of attacks (hint: martials never run out of attacks).

The claim that I've made casters better than martials is rather comical when all of those things are considered. Additionally the changes I've made that impact casters makes the claim laughable:

Individual spells have been balanaced to their respective levels. See spells like Shield for example which changed from +5 to +3. Spells like Banishment for example which allow a save every round for creatures native to the plane. Animate Objects for example where the damage has been significantly curtailed to be in line with 5th level spells. No longer can a caster summon tons of tiny objects to do massive damage. Fireball for example which changed to 6d6 as it was a massive outlier. I have buffed many spells as well, but that just brings those individual spells into the same balance tier as expected. Without these changes spellcasters are actually far more powerful when they choose the outlier spells. With this change casters are not only more diverse, but also more balanced.
Combined saving throws: Balancing out the saving throw types like I have prevents abusing low ability scores for spells that are near impossible to resist. This cuts both ways - for PCs and NPCs. PCs are less likely to suffer severe consequences from their horrible Charisma and Intelligence saves, but so are NPCs. Again this is about internal balance, but also significantly cuts down on the optimization a caster can do.

The Caster-Martial divide is far better in my games than it is RAW.
FinnS speaks out of ignorance of my rules and arrogance of his beliefs. It's best to ignore him imo - this forum's block feature functions quite well for me to avoid overly aggressive members.

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

(giving all casters metamagic). I dislike it and told him so.
I'd like to have a conversation regarding metamagic. It seems you understand that the feats are rather limited and I fully respect your disagreement and don't expect everyone to play like I do, but I'd like to make a case for metamagic being available to all casters. Perhaps we can have a fruitful discussion.

Caster Options:
By RAW a caster has 5 ASIs/feats. Assuming a caster starts with 16 in their casting stat 2/5 of those ASIs go to their casting stat. That leaves 3 options. Resilient and War Caster are pretty much only the great options. (See Treantmonk's guide to Wizards (https://docs.google.com/document/d/1IeOXWvbkmQ3nEyM2P3lS8TU4rsK6QJP0oH7HE_v67QY/edit) under feats). Add Lucky to that list and you've exhausted all great caster options. There are some decent options, but there are so few options for casters.

Controller: 5 ASIs: 2 ASIs for casting ability score with 3 left for Resilient, War Caster, Lucky, or other options which are mostly mediocre.
Blaster: 5 ASIs: 2 ASIs for casting ability score with 3 left for Lucky or other options which are mostly mediocre.

By RAW a martial has 5-7 ASIs/Feats. Assuming they at least increase their attack/damage stat that leaves them with 3-5 ASIs/Feats. Assuming they also increase either their consitution (since most are on the front lines) or their casting stat (Paladin/Ranger) that leaves us with 1-3 ASIs for most martials. Add on feats like GWM, Crossbow Expert, Lucky, Martial Adept, Mobile, Polearm Master, Resilient, Savage Attacker, Sharpshooter, Shield Master and you have a ridiculous amount of options. While many of those would feats are for different styles of fighting and wouldn't be picked on the same character there are plenty of options for individual martials:

Paladin: 5 ASIs: 4 ASIs and GWM/Polearm Master/Shield Master is probably the most optimal, but some ASIs can be dropped in favor of lucky, mobile, savage attacker, or tough (since savage attack and tough are decent in my games).
Fighter: 7 ASIs: 4 ASIs for str/dex and con. 3 ASIs for GWM/Polearm Master/Shield Master and several other fun feats above.

Martials have a gluttony of options - just like it should be, but most casters wouldn't make it to level 20 without their whole progression being mostly dictated to them by their lack of options. Martials can choose to compare a secondary ASI like Con for a Fighter or Cha for a Paladin to another ASI or a feat like the buffed tough or savage attacker in order to determine what makes the most sense for their character. Casters don't have such equal comparisons as they have much fewer options and their great options are far superior to their decent options.

History of the Sorcerer:
5e chose to limit metamagic to the Sorcerer. To understand their reasoning I think it's important to understand the Sorcerer's history:
- In 3.x the Sorcerer was rather similar to the Wizard, but cast spontaneously. The spell list was the same, but the way they cast was rather different. 5e has prepared casters casting spontaneously so that difference is gone.
- In 4e the Sorcerer was chosen to be a Blaster while the Wizard was put in the Controller category. The Wizard was signficiantly more versatile and known as one of the best classes in 4e while the Sorcerer was not.
- In 5e the Sorcerer was originally planned to be cut from the game, but then the feedback from the community was very negative so the developers added it back to the game, but they were in search of a niche. In the only playtest version of the Sorcerer (https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B_-DWooSXsiOaHBWbDNMMC16Ulk/view?pref=2&pli=1) that was released the Sorcerer focused heavily on spell points (known as willpower). It was cut, not even appearing in the final playtest packet.

Ultimately WotC decided to keep the class with a metamagic niche and put together a last minute implementation, but that last minute implementation is the least enjoyable class (http://www.enworld.org/forum/showthread.php?575834-2017-Class-Satisfaction-Survey-Results). Without that specific implementation we likely would've seen metamagic feats.

Flavor of metamagic feats:

As a spellcaster’s knowledge of magic grows, she can learn to cast spells in ways slightly different from the ways in which the spells were originally designed or learned.
In 5e the description is similar:

you gain the ability to twist your spells to suit your needs.
Metamagic is about altering spells. A spell could surely be altered through intimate knowledge of a spell and experience of casting it (Sorcerer), but altering a spell could also be the result of years of other casters studying their magic (Wizards) and then passing that information down.

Strength of metamagic feats:
As you mention above the feats aren't too strong:

Take the feat once, and half the options can only be used once a day. Once you can quicken a spell. Once you can heighten it. And you can't change the option unless you want to take another feat.

Take savage attacker once, and you reroll your damage all day, every day, until you run out of attacks (hint: martials never run out of attacks).
It provides options, but those options are limited. To take metamagic early the caster would have to give up +1 spell DC and +damage in other cases. Metamagic is a good option, but in the early game it'd be decent sacrifice just like Resilient and War Caster are.

Feats as class feature emulation:
In a RAW game feats that emulate class features exist in Martial Adept, Magic Initiate, and Ritual Caster.

While I think Martial Adept is far too much emulation and don't use it, not everyone chooses the same. In a game where the Sorcerer still has metamagic and Martial Adept exists there aren't strong reasons to not allow metamagic as a feat imo.

I can't quite remember why you don't like Metamagic as feats, but the reasons I see to offer it are far more compelling than the reasons not to from what I can see.

Terra Reveene

2017-09-02, 08:25 AM

Speaking of feats, isn't Tavern Brawler a little too powerful on a monk? They can grapple just after using an unarmed strike (one of their MANY unarmed strikes) and then go to town on that enemy, since the rest of their attacks now have advantage.
I believe to limit it you could add in the extra text "make an extra attack to attempt to grapple the target" to limit TWF and such right?

Kryx

2017-09-02, 09:21 AM

Mjolnirbear

2017-09-02, 10:39 AM

Pm'ed you Kryx

Mjolnirbear

2017-09-02, 10:54 AM

So I dislike it because RAW, you took away the only real thing that was unique to the sorcerers.

Granted, you gave far more back than you took. I LOVE your sorcerer and warlock. The problem is that people will always cherry pick. Some Player can go to their DM and say "Hey, this Kryx knows his s#^t. Look at all that math! Can my wizard take his metamagic feat?" Any DM worth their salt would look over the feats before saying yes. But would they look at everything? Would they use the original sorcerer, or yours?

Any possible complaint within your rules, I've had addressed. I'd love to play a bladelock at your table or basically any sorcerer. But when anyone can yoink their favourite parts and skip the rest, it screws the sorcerer. Unless the DM likes your sorcerer and implements it, that is. Which is a possibility, but not a certainty.

But you can't control others so you can't prevent that. You've addressed it as much as you can internally, and you did it well.

Kryx

2017-09-02, 11:11 AM

I LOVE your sorcerer and warlock.
Thanks man.

So I dislike it because RAW, you took away the only real thing that was unique to the sorcerers.

The problem is that people will always cherry pick. Some Player can go to their DM and say "Hey, this Kryx knows his s#^t. Look at all that math! Can my wizard take his metamagic feat?" Any DM worth their salt would look over the feats before saying yes. But would they look at everything? Would they use the original sorcerer, or yours?
I can add a note to the metamagic area that metamagic feats would work best in a game that uses a Sorcerer without metamagic (my sorcerer for example).

Though I'd like to bring up the topic I raised above: Martial Adept. Martial Adept allows other characters to cherry pick Battle Master maneuvers as a feat. I feel like my setup of Metamagic is quite similar: the cost of a feat for a limited time use feature. Those type of features aren't my favorite, but in a game with Martial Adept there doesn't seem to be much reason to prevent it. Additionally I would say the lack of feat options for casters is more important than this overlap imo, but that's subjective especially as most people don't play high enough levels to experience it.

Kryx

2017-09-02, 11:27 AM

* Draconic Bloodline, Power of Wyrms, There are more like this, but I feel like the name is a bit silly.
I wanted to follow up on this. Power of Wyrms comes from PF so you can blame them. I've renamed "Firebird" to "Soul of the Phoenix" as you suggest. I'd appreciate any other renames that you suggest. :)

Terra Reveene

2017-09-02, 11:56 AM

I wanted to follow up on this. Power of Wyrms comes from PF so you can blame them. I've renamed "Firebird" to "Soul of the Phoenix" as you suggest. I'd appreciate any other renames that you suggest. :)

Off the top of my head, "Power of Wyrms" could be changed to "Metamorphosis", since the feature actually changes your body in such a way that it grant some benefits that a real dragon would have. The features you gain before it does change your overall appearance to be more like that of a dragon as well (draconic resilience gives you dragon scales, you literally gain dragon breath, you literally get dragon wings, etc.), so it fits right in.

I'm going very out of order with everything, I'll definitely come back to your Sorcerer at a future point in time (can't say when. I'm too whimsical to know for sure), but right now I'm more interested in other things. I'll definitely keep on helping with this though. I do like your houserules a lot!

MadBear

2017-09-02, 12:42 PM

While this sounds reasonable on the surface I think other posters have outlined why it isn't reasonable once a person digs in to the details of my changes:

The claim that I've made casters better than martials is rather comical when all of those things are considered. Additionally the changes I've made that impact casters makes the claim laughable:

Individual spells have been balanaced to their respective levels. See spells like Shield for example which changed from +5 to +3. Spells like Banishment for example which allow a save every round for creatures native to the plane. Animate Objects for example where the damage has been significantly curtailed to be in line with 5th level spells. No longer can a caster summon tons of tiny objects to do massive damage. Fireball for example which changed to 6d6 as it was a massive outlier. I have buffed many spells as well, but that just brings those individual spells into the same balance tier as expected. Without these changes spellcasters are actually far more powerful when they choose the outlier spells. With this change casters are not only more diverse, but also more balanced.
Combined saving throws: Balancing out the saving throw types like I have prevents abusing low ability scores for spells that are near impossible to resist. This cuts both ways - for PCs and NPCs. PCs are less likely to suffer severe consequences from their horrible Charisma and Intelligence saves, but so are NPCs. Again this is about internal balance, but also significantly cuts down on the optimization a caster can do.

The Caster-Martial divide is far better in my games than it is RAW.
FinnS speaks out of ignorance of my rules and arrogance of his beliefs. It's best to ignore him imo - this forum's block feature functions quite well for me to avoid overly aggressive members.
==============

I'd like to have a conversation regarding metamagic. It seems you understand that the feats are rather limited and I fully respect your disagreement and don't expect everyone to play like I do, but I'd like to make a case for metamagic being available to all casters. Perhaps we can have a fruitful discussion.

Caster Options:
By RAW a caster has 5 ASIs/feats. Assuming a caster starts with 16 in their casting stat 2/5 of those ASIs go to their casting stat. That leaves 3 options. Resilient and War Caster are pretty much only the great options. (See Treantmonk's guide to Wizards (https://docs.google.com/document/d/1IeOXWvbkmQ3nEyM2P3lS8TU4rsK6QJP0oH7HE_v67QY/edit) under feats). Add Lucky to that list and you've exhausted all great caster options. There are some decent options, but there are so few options for casters.

Controller: 5 ASIs: 2 ASIs for casting ability score with 3 left for Resilient, War Caster, Lucky, or other options which are mostly mediocre.
Blaster: 5 ASIs: 2 ASIs for casting ability score with 3 left for Lucky or other options which are mostly mediocre.

By RAW a martial has 5-7 ASIs/Feats. Assuming they at least increase their attack/damage stat that leaves them with 3-5 ASIs/Feats. Assuming they also increase either their consitution (since most are on the front lines) or their casting stat (Paladin/Ranger) that leaves us with 1-3 ASIs for most martials. Add on feats like GWM, Crossbow Expert, Lucky, Martial Adept, Mobile, Polearm Master, Resilient, Savage Attacker, Sharpshooter, Shield Master and you have a ridiculous amount of options. While many of those would feats are for different styles of fighting and wouldn't be picked on the same character there are plenty of options for individual martials:

Paladin: 5 ASIs: 4 ASIs and GWM/Polearm Master/Shield Master is probably the most optimal, but some ASIs can be dropped in favor of lucky, mobile, savage attacker, or tough (since savage attack and tough are decent in my games).
Fighter: 7 ASIs: 4 ASIs for str/dex and con. 3 ASIs for GWM/Polearm Master/Shield Master and several other fun feats above.

Martials have a gluttony of options - just like it should be, but most casters wouldn't make it to level 20 without their whole progression being mostly dictated to them by their lack of options. Martials can choose to compare a secondary ASI like Con for a Fighter or Cha for a Paladin to another ASI or a feat like the buffed tough or savage attacker in order to determine what makes the most sense for their character. Casters don't have such equal comparisons as they have much fewer options and their great options are far superior to their decent options.

History of the Sorcerer:
5e chose to limit metamagic to the Sorcerer. To understand their reasoning I think it's important to understand the Sorcerer's history:
- In 3.x the Sorcerer was rather similar to the Wizard, but cast spontaneously. The spell list was the same, but the way they cast was rather different. 5e has prepared casters casting spontaneously so that difference is gone.
- In 4e the Sorcerer was chosen to be a Blaster while the Wizard was put in the Controller category. The Wizard was signficiantly more versatile and known as one of the best classes in 4e while the Sorcerer was not.
- In 5e the Sorcerer was originally planned to be cut from the game, but then the feedback from the community was very negative so the developers added it back to the game, but they were in search of a niche. In the only playtest version of the Sorcerer (https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B_-DWooSXsiOaHBWbDNMMC16Ulk/view?pref=2&pli=1) that was released the Sorcerer focused heavily on spell points (known as willpower). It was cut, not even appearing in the final playtest packet.

Ultimately WotC decided to keep the class with a metamagic niche and put together a last minute implementation, but that last minute implementation is the least enjoyable class (http://www.enworld.org/forum/showthread.php?575834-2017-Class-Satisfaction-Survey-Results). Without that specific implementation we likely would've seen metamagic feats.

Flavor of metamagic feats:

In 5e the description is similar:

Metamagic is about altering spells. A spell could surely be altered through intimate knowledge of a spell and experience of casting it (Sorcerer), but altering a spell could also be the result of years of other casters studying their magic (Wizards) and then passing that information down.

Strength of metamagic feats:
As you mention above the feats aren't too strong:

It provides options, but those options are limited. To take metamagic early the caster would have to give up +1 spell DC and +damage in other cases. Metamagic is a good option, but in the early game it'd be decent sacrifice just like Resilient and War Caster are.

Feats as class feature emulation:
In a RAW game feats that emulate class features exist in Martial Adept, Magic Initiate, and Ritual Caster.

While I think Martial Adept is far too much emulation and don't use it, not everyone chooses the same. In a game where the Sorcerer still has metamagic and Martial Adept exists there aren't strong reasons to not allow metamagic as a feat imo.

I can't quite remember why you don't like Metamagic as feats, but the reasons I see to offer it are far more compelling than the reasons not to from what I can see.

Thanks you for the response Kryx. In a funny way you kinda proved my point. I wasn't trying to say that I agreed with Finns position, or that he was right. I was merely trying to point out to him that his approach to conversation was literally getting in the way of him having a productive conversation. And to be fair, I'd say his underlying question was reasonable. In the same way a person from long ago wouldn't be unreasonable to think the sun went around the earth, I think his questions were definitely reasonable if ultimately wrong.

Anyways, thanks again, I think I'll be trying to see if I can get my group to adopt some (if not all) of your house rules.

Kryx

2017-09-02, 01:27 PM

I'd say his underlying question was reasonable.
Agreed, I didn't meant to imply the question you rephrased was unreasonable. It's totally reasonable to bring up such a question. The issue is that question was a crudely shaped club that was wielded multiple times in an attempt to "win" the argument via brute force.
It's always entirely possible that my perception is wrong and that's why I appreciate feedback - especially feedback that provides suggestions for how to improve things that people aren't happy with. With productive feedback I'm sure I could identify other outlying spells (forcecage/wall of force) or other areas of balance.

Side note: I come to these boards to enjoy a hobby that we all share. I have no interest in interacting with those who communicate in overly aggressive manners. It is a negative side of our hobby and I find myself enjoying this forum (and others) much more when I look past people who choose to communicate in those ways.

I think I'll be trying to see if I can get my group to adopt some (if not all) of your house rules.
Nice, let me know if you have any feedback. Terra Reveene for example has caught several examples of poor proofreading and overpowered interactions.

MadBear

2017-09-02, 02:32 PM

Agreed, I didn't meant to imply the question you rephrased was unreasonable. It's totally reasonable to bring up such a question. The issue is that question was a crudely shaped club that was wielded multiple times in an attempt to "win" the argument via brute force.
It's always entirely possible that my perception is wrong and that's why I appreciate feedback - especially feedback that provides suggestions for how to improve things that people aren't happy with. With productive feedback I'm sure I could identify other outlying spells (forcecage/wall of force) or other areas of balance.

Side note: I come to these boards to enjoy a hobby that we all share. I have no interest in interacting with those who communicate in overly aggressive manners. It is a negative side of our hobby and I find myself enjoying this forum (and others) much more when I look past people who choose to communicate in those ways.

Nice, let me know if you have any feedback. Terra Reveene for example has caught several examples of poor proofreading and overpowered interactions.

For sure. I'm lucky that my group is super good with the whole rulings over rules. There have been a few times where we change a rule that just isn't functioning well for our group.

Terra Reveene

2017-09-02, 03:34 PM

A thing I missed on the Warlock:

Under Shadowy Armor, it says "light armor" where it should say "leather armor" (I'm pretty sure that is the case anyway)

On Skills:

Bugs

Acrobatics, Tumble
Mentions bonus action, should be once per turn or as an action.

Manipulation
The "deceive" description says that you use it to pass yourself off in a disguise, which is included just below it. It's redundant.

Society, Decipher Writing
I've mentioned it before, but I really do think that 'stealth' should be rolled by whatever's trying to hide (in this case the writing that the PCs are trying to decipher). This being a good example of it. The reason why you have the GM make the roll in secret is because you don't want PCs knowing whether they failed or not.

I'm not saying you should change it, but I just want you to know that it's being added to my list of "reasons why PCs should never get to make rolls attempting to find something they don't already know is there".

As a sidenote, it mentiones "both checks are rolled by the GM in secret" when there's only one roll?

Stealth
The last line is redundant with the "Hiding" portion right after it which mentions the same thing.

Suggestions

Athletics
'Bounding Leap' Once per turn when you jump, you can attempt to jump further than you're normally capable of. Make a Strength (Athletics) check. Your long jump's distance increases by the result divided by 5 (10 for a high jump), rounded down.
This standardizes PCs trying to jump further or higher than they're normally capable of. It's a risk, since they can fall, but it does give more movement options.

Brawn
Let people make a Strength (Brawn) check to try and shove a creature behind yourself (read pull a creature behind you). This functions like a shove, but is made with disadvantage. On a success, you place the creature behind yourself (this effectively shoves the creature 10 feet towards you, placing it behind you). It replaces one of your attacks if you can make multiple attacks.

General

Society
I call this skill "Societal". It doesn't really matter what the name is, and it's probably more work than it's worth for you to change it. I just wanted to mention it, since "Soecietal Skill" sounds better than "Society Skill". At least imo.

On Combat:

Bugs

Chapter 7: Combat, Interacting with Objects Around You
It mentions that you can draw or sheathe a sword or two light weapons. Isn't this redundant with the Fighting Stance's Two Weapon Fighting?

Checked; it lets you draw or sheathe any two weapons. So nvm. Still leaving this in, just in case that's not intentional. Because it does seem weird that your one object interaction can be used to do only one thing in all cases other than drawing or sheathing two light weapons.
('stuff some food' and 'fish a few coins' are synonymous with 'a handful of', which is singular)

Instant Death/Massive Damage
I've got a system in mind that might make massive damage a little more dangerous. Currently, Instant Death doesn't work on PCs as soon as player characters level up a few times, which renders the rule obsolete and, ultimately, pointless. This new system aims at making sure that massive amounts of damage from a source remains dangerous at all levels.
http://homebrewery.naturalcrit.com/share/HJ-tWgquY-
I just came up with it, so it's most likely not going to be very balanced. It, or something similar to this, would be a good replacement for the Instant Death rules though, I think.

MadBear

2017-09-02, 03:56 PM

Instant Death/Massive Damage
I've got a system in mind that might make massive damage a little more dangerous. Currently, Instant Death doesn't work on PCs as soon as player characters level up a few times, which renders the rule obsolete and, ultimately, pointless. This new system aims at making sure that massive amounts of damage from a source remains dangerous at all levels.
http://homebrewery.naturalcrit.com/share/HJ-tWgquY-
I just came up with it, so it's most likely not going to be very balanced. It, or something similar to this, would be a good replacement for the Instant Death rules though, I think.

I really like the idea of a better massive damage table. The current rule feels a bit clunky though, if only because it requires a few different bits of addition and subtraction.

To make sure I got this right, let's say my 5th level fighter takes 45 damage from a breath weapon. His hit dice give him 10, he gets + 3 from constitution (for the sake of the argument), and he gets another + 5 for the 5hd he has= 18. I now subract 45 from 18 to get= 27. From there I roll a d20 and get 10 which I subract 27 from to get a grand total of -17. So in this case the fighter is stunned and pushed 20 ft. The thing is, I'm spending 4 different discreet steps to get to the result of something that happened that wasn't even on my turn.

My concern is that this might slow the game down a bit, and could cause confusion for newer players. Maybe a way of streamlining it might work better. I'm not sure how'd you do this, although I'll try and think about it.

Kryx

2017-09-02, 04:03 PM

Under Shadowy Armor, it says "light armor" where it should say "leather armor" (I'm pretty sure that is the case anyway)
Acrobatics, Tumble Mentions bonus action, should be once per turn or as an action.
Manipulation The "deceive" description says that you use it to pass yourself off in a disguise, which is included just below it. It's redundant.
Stealth The last line is redundant with the "Hiding" portion right after it which mentions the same thing.
Fixed

Society, Decipher Writing I've mentioned it before, but I really do think that 'stealth' should be rolled by whatever's trying to hide (in this case the writing that the PCs are trying to decipher). This being a good example of it. The reason why you have the GM make the roll in secret is because you don't want PCs knowing whether they failed or not.
I've removed the part about the roll being made in secret.

By that same logic a PC should never make any knowledge checks, perception checks, stealth checks, charisma checks. Really everything should be rolled in secret for them... That can't be accepted.

Athletics
'Bounding Leap' Once per turn when you jump, you can attempt to jump further than you're normally capable of. Make a Strength (Athletics) check. Your long jump's distance increases by the result divided by 5 (10 for a high jump), rounded down.
This standardizes PCs trying to jump further or higher than they're normally capable of. It's a risk, since they can fall, but it does give more movement options.

Brawn
Let people make a Strength (Brawn) check to try and shove a creature behind yourself (read pull a creature behind you). This functions like a shove, but is made with disadvantage. On a success, you place the creature behind yourself (this effectively shoves the creature 10 feet towards you, placing it behind you). It replaces one of your attacks if you can make multiple attacks.
Not a fan of either, sorry.
- Athletics already determines how far you can jump (notice the lack of auto jump distances).

Society I call this skill "Societal". It doesn't really matter what the name is, and it's probably more work than it's worth for you to change it. I just wanted to mention it, since "Soecietal Skill" sounds better than "Society Skill". At least imo.

Use the terms "Arcana", "History", "Medicine", "Nature", and "Religion" with the word knowledge and you'll see that they are structured as "Knowledge of ____", not "X knowledge". "Knowledge of Society", not "Societal Knowledge". This would be inconsistent with the other terms.

Chapter 7: Combat, Interacting with Objects Around You
It mentions that you can draw or sheathe a sword or two light weapons. Isn't this redundant with the Fighting Stance's Two Weapon Fighting?
Nope.
"you can draw or stow two one-handed weapons when you would normally be able to draw or stow only one" vs
"draw or sheathe a sword or two light weapons"

Terra Reveene

2017-09-02, 04:22 PM

I really like the idea of a better massive damage table. The current rule feels a bit clunky though, if only because it requires a few different bits of addition and subtraction.

To make sure I got this right, let's say my 5th level fighter takes 45 damage from a breath weapon. His hit dice give him 10, he gets + 3 from constitution (for the sake of the argument), and he gets another + 5 for the 5hd he has= 18. I now subract 45 from 18 to get= 27. From there I roll a d20 and get 10 which I subract 27 from to get a grand total of -17. So in this case the fighter is stunned and pushed 20 ft. The thing is, I'm spending 4 different discreet steps to get to the result of something that happened that wasn't even on my turn.

My concern is that this might slow the game down a bit, and could cause confusion for newer players. Maybe a way of streamlining it might work better. I'm not sure how'd you do this, although I'll try and think about it.

Yeah you got it all right. EDIT: Mostly. You'd also get knocked prone.

That is a good point. Perhaps counting up would be easier. So you roll the d20, add the excess damage and the d20 result together, and then consult the table. The number of steps would be three. Subtract damage from the threshold, add to d20 roll, compare to table (you'd have your threshold written down). The thing about massive damage is that it wouldn't happen all the time. It'd be similar to critical hits, which are less complicated, sure, but they still add complexity.
Newer players would probably get into the habit of comparing the damage they take to their threshold whenever they take damage. It'd help if you can get the threshold next to wherever they write down their current hp though.

I'll change the rule to be additive, so negative numbers aren't needed. I think that'd simplify it.

Kryx

2017-09-02, 04:37 PM

"Massive Damage" with System Shock is covered in the DMG on page 273.

FinnS

2017-09-02, 04:39 PM

I'm just going to repeat myself once as a last response and never look back.

"So...example, a Martial character that wants to just get their full Prof Mod to their AC for a single attack/round they have to spend 2 Feats.
A Caster can spend those same 2 Feats on Metamagic and have 1-2 Greaters and/or 2-4 Minors and 6 MM points.
Hmmmm...that sounds like an even tradeoff...

Now since all your ability scores go up +1 at 5, 10 & 15, a Caster has no reason to spend their ASI/Feats on said ability scores so they are free to spend all 10 of them on Metamagic or up to 9 if you rule that they can't take it if they already know all the MM options and can't just do it to get another 3 MM points. All MM options and 27 MM points by level 19 (Level 16 if Human).
So JUST by level 6 any non-Human Caster could have 1-3 Greater and/or 4-6 Minor MM options and 9 MM points (1-4 and/or 6-7 with 12 MM points as Human)."

^The above is hopelessly overpowered. Any DM that can't see that and allows it at his/her table deserves every bit of the chaos that will ensue as a result.

/peace

Terra Reveene

2017-09-02, 04:41 PM

Use the terms "Arcana", "History", "Medicine", "Nature", and "Religion" with the word knowledge and you'll see that they are structured as "Knowledge of ____", not "X knowledge". "Knowledge of Society", not "Societal Knowledge". This would be inconsistent with the other terms.

Ah. I don't use skills for knowledge, so that'd be why it looks weird to me.

A shame you didn't like my suggestions for Athletics or Brawn. Maybe next time.

"Massive Damage" with System Shock is covered in the DMG on page 273.

My system works differently, if what you're insinuating is that my system is similar. If you were just noting the page number, than I'll add it. Thanks.

Terra Reveene

2017-09-02, 04:47 PM

Now since all your ability scores go up +1 at 5, 10 & 15, a Caster has no reason to spend their ASI/Feats on said ability scores so they are free to spend all 10 of them...
/peace

They get 6. Just leave already.

MadBear

2017-09-02, 04:50 PM

Kryx

2017-09-02, 04:50 PM

Strill

2017-09-02, 04:55 PM

I gotta say I strongly dislike the fact that Paladins get cantrips. I like the distinction of there being some magic-users without cantrips. It's a matter of consistency with the source material. When I think of Sir Galahad or St. George, magically creating light on command like a toy is the last thing I think of. These characters did not flaunt their divine blessing for personal attention. Heck, to do that would destroy the very aspects of their character that make them deserving of that divine blessing in the first place. You can even see this theme in the Paladin spell list. Any spell that doesn't directly involve smiting the enemy is subtle. Invisible auras, blessings, or senses, and never any magic for personal gain or convenience outside the Paladin's mission. Healing the sick is about as obvious as a Paladin's magic gets apart from Smites.

My good blade carves the casques of men,
My tough lance thrusteth sure,
My strength is as the strength of ten,
Because my heart is pure.

- Sir Galahad, Alfred Lord Tennyson

You might as well make cantrips a default Fighter class feature since they have as much to do with Achilles or Bellerophon or Odysseus as they have to do with St. George.

Also: I noticed you removed Destructive Wave from the Paladin Spell List. Why's that?

Gryndle

2017-09-02, 05:01 PM

TL/DR. I'm sure there is some good stuff in there but if someone linked a 157 page Homebrew file and told me we using these rules I'd politely decline.

yeah this pretty much sums up my feelings on it. Kryxx put a lot of effort into this, and I applaud that. But it is just too much, and honestly, unnecessary. If you cant put your house rules on one or two pages, then you are expecting too much from your players.

Terra Reveene

2017-09-02, 05:01 PM

Why you gotta quote him? Then I have to read his inane rambling.. :(

He's literally complaining how all ability scores improving by 3 over 15 levels helps casters too much. Yet improving all ability scores is far better for MAD classes (Martials/Gishes) than SAD classes (Casters). And he has no idea how many ASIs/Feats my rules give.
Arrogant and ignorant... *sigh*

On that note, you might want to look at the barbarian, they seem to get 7 ASIs, looking in their class. Should also note that they give the option of a +2 to an ability score. It could cause confusion, but I doubt that is the case this time. And even if it is, I don't think it matters at all.

Come to think of it, I've been reading ASIs from page 7, is the +1 to all stats at three different levels and +6 that you can distribute exactly the way you want not the norm for your homebrew? (+7 for rogue +8 for fighter)
I've just assumed that that is correct all this time and skipped over reading the ASI feature on all classes up until now.

MadBear

2017-09-02, 05:04 PM

reading the feats section I'm a little confused.

So in yours a fighter would get +1 to all his abilities scores at 5, 10, & 15. He'd also get 14 ability score improvements over the course of his career (2,4,6,7,8,10,11,12,13,14,15,16,19,20) of which he could then use to max secondary traits and/or grab a ton of feats.

Is that right? If not, why does the fighter description only show the original 7?

(I guess what I'm asking, is the original 7 supposed to go with the feats as you've redesigned them, or do the feats as you've designed them go with the more dispersed method)?

Kryx

2017-09-02, 05:08 PM

I gotta say I strongly dislike the fact that Paladins get cantrips. I like the distinction of there being some magic-users without cantrips. It's a matter of consistency with the source material.
You make a valid point. EnWorld seems to agree (http://www.enworld.org/forum/showthread.php?473092-Adding-cantrips-to-paladin-and-ranger). I'm inclined to agree, with a possible alteration: remove "magic" cantrips.

Keep Guidance, Resistance, and Thaumaturgy. Possibly Spare the Dying. Thoughts?

I noticed you removed Destructive Wave from the Paladin Spell List. Why's that?
Unintentional. I'll resolve it in the next version.

Strill

2017-09-02, 05:13 PM

You make a valid point. EnWorld seems to agree (http://www.enworld.org/forum/showthread.php?473092-Adding-cantrips-to-paladin-and-ranger). I'm inclined to agree, with a possible alteration: remove "magic" cantrips.

Keep Guidance, Resistance, and Thaumaturgy. Possibly Spare the Dying. Thoughts?

That sounds pretty reasonable.

Kryx

2017-09-02, 05:16 PM

On that note, you might want to look at the barbarian, they seem to get 7 ASIs, looking in their class.
I see the normal amount of 5: 4th, 8th, 12th, 16th, 19th.

Should also note that they give the option of a +2 to an ability score. It could cause confusion, but I doubt that is the case this time. And even if it is, I don't think it matters at all.
All ASIs on classes are listed as 2. I have a hard time balancing presenting my houserules and RAW sometimes. I should probably change this as RAW known to most everyone.

So in yours a fighter would get +1 to all his abilities scores at 5, 10, & 15. He'd also get 14 ability score improvements over the course of his career (2,4,6,7,8,10,11,12,13,14,15,16,19,20) of which he could then use to max secondary traits and/or grab a ton of feats.
"Variant: Progression Similar to RAW" is a variant without a feat at 2nd level and +1 at 5,10,15.

why does the fighter description only show the original 7?
Because I don't use that variant. It's just there for people who don't want the new way of ASIs.

Terra Reveene

2017-09-02, 05:22 PM

I see the normal amount of 5: 4th, 8th, 12th, 16th, 19th.

http://i.imgur.com/VJFSgW9.png

That's odd. This is what I see, after refreshing the page, mind.

Strill

2017-09-02, 05:26 PM

I notice you've changed healing spells to Necromancy, something I'm happy to see. Have you considered changing some spells over to Abjuration? Otiluke's Resilient Sphere, for example, stands out as completely out of place in Evocation. Same for Leomund's Tiny Hut.

Kryx

2017-09-02, 05:26 PM

That's odd. This is what I see, after refreshing the page, mind.
Ah, I didn't understand what you meant. I thought you meant the class table. I'll fix this.

Kryx

2017-09-02, 05:38 PM

I notice you've changed healing spells to Necromancy, something I'm happy to see.
I change healing spells to necromancy because the caster is altering the life force of a creature. Later versions of D&D labeling necromancy as all bad and not the duality of life is a mistake I'm happy to remedy.

Have you considered changing some spells over to Abjuration? Otiluke's Resilient Sphere, for example, stands out as completely out of place in Evocation.
Hmm I'm not sure about this. You're talking about spells like Forcecage and Otiluke’s Resilient Sphere.

Per PHB:

Abjuration spells are protective in nature, though some of them have aggressive uses. They create magical barriers, negate harmful effects, harm trespassers, or banish creatures to other planes of existence.
So perhaps you're right. Looking at School balance (https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1N4QC6EmXE0avgk8jK1aubJcaFoZDYw8b_DuPHh8aBTc/edit#gid=335036557) abjuration has 46 spells while evocation has 92 so moving some off evocation to abjuration would be fine balance wise. Seems reasonable.

Do you have a full list of ones you'd suggest changing to abjuration?

Strill

2017-09-02, 06:12 PM

Otiluke's Resilient Sphere
Leomund's Tiny Hut
Forcecage
Fire Shield
Sequester (transmutation -> Abjuration)

Debatable:
Bless (Enchantment -> Abjuration)
Most Wall spells, including Blade Barrier
Warding Wind
Contingency
Hold Person/Monster (Enchantment -> Abjuration)

Also Wall of Stone should be Conjuration

Kryx

2017-09-02, 06:39 PM

Otiluke's Resilient Sphere
Leomund's Tiny Hut
Forcecage
Fire Shield
Sequester (transmutation -> Abjuration)
Agreed on these except Fire Shield. Fire Shield is a deterrant through elemental force - evocation fits it imo.

EDIT: I'm not sure I agree on any of these besides Wall of Stone actually... See https://www.reddit.com/r/DnD/comments/4lrjws/5e_i_dont_understand_the_logic_behind_schools_of/?st=j73ynjkr&sh=331fed3d

Bless (Enchantment -> Abjuration)
Most Wall spells, including Blade Barrier
Warding Wind
Contingency
Hold Person/Monster (Enchantment -> Abjuration)
I don't agree on these.
- Bless doesn't seem to fit Abjuration
- Walls are definitely not Abjuration. Either Conjuration or Evocation. Wall of Stone should definitely swap to Conjuration over evocation. The divide seems to be "does this do elemental damage? then evocation, otherwise conjuration", but then Wind wall, Wall of Sand, and others don't fit that. I don't quite understand the divide here.
- Warding Wind is evoking wind - seems fine.
- Contingency seems to fit - you're evoking another spell.
- Hold Person/Monster matches Enchantment. Definitely not abjuration.

Strill

2017-09-02, 06:55 PM

Agreed on these except Fire Shield. It's a deterrant through elemental force - evocation fits it imo.

I don't agree on these.
- Bless doesn't seem to fit Abjuration
- Walls are definitely not Abjuration. Either Conjuration or Evocation. Wall of Stone should definitely swap to Conjuration over evocation. The divide seems to be "does this do elemental damage? then evocation, otherwise conjuration", but then Wind wall, Wall of Sand, and others don't fit that. I don't quite understand the divide here.
- Warding Wind is evoking wind - seems fine.
- Contingency seems to fit - you're evoking another spell.
- Hold Person/Monster matches Enchantment. Definitely not abjuration.

While I don't disagree with these perspectives, it is a pet peeve of mine that the school of Abjuration covers only those spells that don't first fall into any other school. For example, evocation covers Elemental energy, and Abjuration covers protective magic. So why is it that an elemental protective spell falls first under Evocation and not Abjuration? It's as if the designers went through each of the schools of magic, assigned most of the spells, and then gave anything that didn't fit into any other school of magic to Abjuration.

That is a big part of why Abjuration has so few spells. You'd think that the school of magic based around magical barriers would have plenty of Wall spells, but they have only one - Prismatic Wall. Since Evocation gets first claim to spells, it gets all of the elemental wall spells before Abjuration.

Tangentially, it's also why the PHB Eldritch Knight is seen as underpowered. There is only a single 2nd-level Wizard Abjuration spell - Arcane Lock. All of the defensive spells at that level were given out to other schools of magic. In my opinion, I think the Eldritch Knight itself is fine. I think it just needs relevant spells in its spell list.

EDIT:

EDIT: I'm not sure I agree on any of these besides Wall of Stone actually... See https://www.reddit.com/r/DnD/comment...kr&sh=331fed3dI agree that Leomund's Tiny Hut, or Forcecage, or Otiluke's Resilient Sphere CAN fit consistently as Evocation. The same argument can be made in reverse by saying that Shield and Shield of Faith should be Evocation instead of Abjuration, because they are constructs of magical force. In the same way, Cure Wounds can fit as Evocation if you imagine that the caster is channeling energy from the Positive Energy Plane, rather than manipulating the forces of life and death. The question is, why you would take spells whose effects are most iconic of Abjuration, and contrive their underlying concept to fit Evocation instead?

There's a bit of subjective overlap here. Evocation is defined by the magic's source. Abjuration is defined by the magic's purpose. The scope of each school overlaps. If you define Leomund's Tiny Hut as "a construct of magical force", then it becomes evocation. If you define it as "a ward blocking all but a select few creatures" it becomes Abjuration. My argument is that Abjuration is bereft of spells, and that these spells are very iconic of what Abjuration is meant to accomplish. Therefore, they should be defined in the sense that fits Abjuration.

Kryx

2017-09-02, 07:20 PM

See the edit:

EDIT: I'm not sure I agree on any of these besides Wall of Stone actually... See https://www.reddit.com/r/DnD/comments/4lrjws/5e_i_dont_understand_the_logic_behind_schools_of/?st=j73ynjkr&sh=331fed3d
I think I'll only change wall of stone and Sequester, personally.

I think the examples in the reddit thread with some alterations

Abjuration = Negate
Conjuration = Create/summon/teleport
Divination = Sense
Enchantment = Manipulate Mind
Evocation = Elemental/Create
Illusion = Manipulate Sense
Necromancy = Manipulate Life/Soul
Trasmutation = Change

It would be much easier if schools were properly defined and the history of D&D spells was removed, but that'd be difficult. For instance teleport spells in conjuration is crazy imo.

I like the above definitions, but I'd move some evocation to conjuration (walls) and move teleports into transmutation with time based spells. But probably not worth the effort.

Strill

2017-09-02, 07:25 PM

Ok then, I'll play devil's advocate. If Leomund's Tiny Hut should be evocation because it is a construct of magical force, then shouldn't Shield and Shield of Faith also be evocation?

Kryx

2017-09-02, 07:26 PM

I agree that Leomund's Tiny Hut, or Forcecage, or Otiluke's Resilient Sphere CAN fit consistently as Evocation. In the same way, Cure Wounds can fit as Evocation if you imagine that the caster is channeling energy from the Positive Energy Plane, rather than manipulating the forces of life and death. The question is, why you would take spells whose effects are most iconic of Abjuration, and contrive their underlying concept to fit Evocation instead?
Forcecage isn't iconicly Abjuration: http://www.d20pfsrd.com/magic/all-spells/f/forcecage/, http://www.d20srd.org/srd/spells/forcecage.htm
Tiny Hut isn't Abjuration: http://www.d20pfsrd.com/magic/all-spells/t/tiny-hut/, http://www.d20srd.org/srd/spells/tinyHut.htm, http://pandaria.rpgworlds.info/cant/rules/adnd_spells.htm#Leomund's Tiny Hut
Wall of Force isn't abjuration: http://www.d20pfsrd.com/magic/all-spells/w/wall-of-force/, http://www.d20srd.org/srd/spells/wallOfForce.htmm http://pandaria.rpgworlds.info/cant/rules/adnd_spells.htm#Wall Of Force

None of those spells have been abjuration in D&D as far as I can see. I think too much was read into "magical barriers".

There's a bit of subjective overlap here. Evocation is defined by the magic's source. Abjuration is defined by the magic's purpose. The scope of each school overlaps. If you define Leomund's Tiny Hut as "a construct of magical force", then it becomes evocation. If you define it as "a ward blocking all but a select few creatures" it becomes Abjuration. My argument is that Abjuration is bereft of spells, and that these spells are very iconic of what Abjuration is meant to accomplish. Therefore, they should be defined in the sense that fits Abjuration.
The problem is your definition is not the definition WotC is using. For their system how is what determines the school, not the why. How is defined by history of the hobby.
Not that it all makes sense. Imprisonment is Abjuration for example...

Kryx

2017-09-02, 07:30 PM

Ok then, I'll play devil's advocate. If Leomund's Tiny Hut should be evocation because it is a construct of magical force, then shouldn't Shield and Shield of Faith also be evocation?
I'd love to read about people's opinions on this topic. Perhaps you'd start a new thread discussing the schools of spells so others can join in on the discussion?

MadBear

2017-09-02, 10:09 PM

Hello again,

Looking at page 7, it is currently really hard for me to parse. It's possible I'm just being dumb, but the parts that are variant, and the parts that are not, don't mesh very well.

"More Dispersed Progression"

so is everything under this tab technically a variant rule then?

"D&D has always favored progression of a single attribute
except in 4th edition where many attributes were improved at
certain break points.
This rule is intended to allow your characters to grow as
they progress in levels, not only in their strengths, but also in
their less capable areas.
At character level 2 you gain a feat and at character levels
5, 10, and 15 all ability scores increase by 1."

so is this part of the normal rules, or is this instead a part of a variant set of rules. If it is part of the normal rules, shouldn't the class pages reflect this. And if it's not, the variant rule part is rather confusing.

"
Notes
By default a Fighter has 7 ASIS, or 14 ability score
value, a Rogue has 6 ASIs, or 12 ability score value, and
every other class has a total of 5 ASIs, or 10 ability
score value. With this variant Fighters will have 8+18,
Rogues will have 7+18, and every other class will have
6+18. The 18 are mainly in secondary ability scores so
the power increase is minimal for Single Attribute
Dependent classes and small for Multiple Attribute
Dependent classes.
Variant: Progression Similar to RAW
Ability Score Improvements
Class Progression
Fighter 2,4,6,7,8,10,11,12,13,14,15,16,19,20
Rogue 2,4,6, 8,10,11,12,13,14, 16,19,20
Others 2,4,6, 8,10, 12, 14, 16,19,20"

I get the start that fighters 7 ASI could be represented as 14 ability score points. I'm really lost on what it means to say fighters will have 8+18. The thing is, in this version, would a character still swap those +1 ASI out for a full feat? Is this part of the +1 at 5,10,15 to all traits?

It's just this whole section is a little unclear about what is tying into what.

Anyways thanks for the hard work, I just wanted some clarity a part this is hard for me to grasp.