D&D 5e Base Class Contest I Chat Thread

[Requilac]

The voting period has begun and no more changes may be made to the base classes.

Welcome to the chat thread for the Base Class Competitions for D&D 5e. If you wish to say anything about the competition or a contestant’s work which is neither a submission nor a vote, then it belongs here. You do not need to be a contestant to post here. You are allowed to critique a competitor’s work and offer suggestions on how to improve their homebrew through this thread, but nowhere else may you do so. I will also be holding discussions over what the next competition’s theme should be in here. Let us begin.

Submissions thread: http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?556338-D-amp-D-5e-Base-Class-Contest-I-Who-needs-Swords-OR-Sorcerery
Voting thread: http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?556339-D-amp-D-5e-Base-Class-Contest-I-Voting-Thread

[WarrentheHero]

So by these rules, if a competitor posts their class here on GitP, we can't critique it on the post with the class? Only on this, separate, thread?

[Requilac]

So by these rules, if a competitor posts their class here on GitP, we can't critique it on the post with the class? Only on this, separate, thread?

Before we begin let me start by saying that these rules are open to change. If you find that this rule is faulted, then make your case and I would be willing to change it.

All the class submissions will be in the submission thread anyway, they wouldn't create an individual thread for them in the first place. The reason behind that rule is to make sure that the submissions thread is not cluttered and just has the classes posted there for everyone to view. It’s more of an organizational thing. I didn’t see a major problem with it being set up that way, and that is how the 3.5 contests work, so I saw no reason to not go with it. Do you believe that it needs to be changed?

[Requilac]

Is it acceptable for a class to cast spells that don't use spell slots? For example, each Monk archetype (in PHB at least), as well as the base Monk class itself, gives the ability to cast certain spells, but no-one would really consider the Monk to be a "real" spellcaster.

On a related note, are spellcasting subclasses okay? In the vein of Eldritch Knight or Arcane Trickster

When I made the interest check thread the main idea was to create a class who is no a martial that can do interesting things not covered by spells, so I would advise against unconventional spellcasting too. That being said, making a class which casts spells without spell slots is not going to get you disqualified nor your work declared invalid. If you wish to do that, do so and you will not get punished, but be aware that you may be less likely to be voted on.

[WarrentheHero]

All the class submissions will be in the submission thread anyway, they wouldn't create an individual thread for them in the first place. The reason behind that rule is to make sure that the submissions thread is not cluttered and just has the classes posted there for everyone to view. It’s more of an organizational thing. I didn’t see a major problem with it being set up that way, and that is how the 3.5 contests work, so I saw no reason to not go with it. Do you believe that it needs to be changed?

Somewhere al9ng the lines of 1.5-2 years ago there was a couple of 5e contests that I think were organized pretty well. They had their main thread latlying out the rules. People would build their classes in separate threads, since they were more visible to those outside the contest, and it avoided posting 2-4 pages of content as comments in the submission. Instead, you would simply put a comment in the submission thread with a link to your class, and a link in your class to the contest.

This way, all critiques relates to your class would be contained within the class's thread, which is much easier than cross-referenxing two threads. And again, it meant that your class could be seen by those who don't bother with contests, so you would have greater feedback, and it avoids cluttering the main thread with 25 levels of class features.

[PhoenixPhyre]

If I post a class as a link to, say, a PDF (to ensure non editable-ness), is there a preferred style or set of things that should go in the actual forum post?

I have one as a Google doc that'll be my entry.

[Requilac]

@ WarrentheHero, I will think about what you said and get back to you on it in a little while.


If I post a class as a link to, say, a PDF (to ensure non editable-ness), is there a preferred style or set of things that should go in the actual forum post?

I have one as a Google doc that'll be my entry.

Have you posted this document anywhere else before entering it in the contest? Because if you have then that is technically against the rule to submit it. We don’t want to make it so that some people get more time to get their project PEACHed than others. And no there is not a requirement for the actual forum post in the submission thread, just put the title of your class in and a link and it should be fine.

[Requilac]

Somewhere al9ng the lines of 1.5-2 years ago there was a couple of 5e contests that I think were organized pretty well. They had their main thread latlying out the rules. People would build their classes in separate threads, since they were more visible to those outside the contest, and it avoided posting 2-4 pages of content as comments in the submission. Instead, you would simply put a comment in the submission thread with a link to your class, and a link in your class to the contest.

This way, all critiques relates to your class would be contained within the class's thread, which is much easier than cross-referenxing two threads. And again, it meant that your class could be seen by those who don't bother with contests, so you would have greater feedback, and it avoids cluttering the main thread with 25 levels of class features.

These are all good points and I had definitely considered that set up to it. The main thing though is that most of the people who are doing these contest are also the same people accustomed to doing or viewing the 3.5e competitions, and I wanted to make it easy for those people to compete here too. And I don't really think the cross-referencing is all that difficult, nor do I believe the idea of keeping all the content in one thread as clutter. I suppose it would attract more attention if each class had its own individual thread, but that is about the only merit I can see.

For now though I think we should probably stick with the current model. It is one people are more familiar with (to my knowledge) and is somewhat easier to organize and keep together. Maybe in the future I will implement that but it seems like a fault to do so now. If enough people also bring up the same complaint I will definitely change it, but it just doesn't seem like the best idea now that I have already started everything.

[PhoenixPhyre]

Have you posted this document anywhere else before entering it in the contest? Because if you have then that is technically against the rule to submit it. We don’t want to make it so that some people get more time to get their project PEACHed than others. And no there is not a requirement for the actual forum post in the submission thread, just put the title of your class in and a link and it should be fine.

Nope. I have a different one that I have posted before that I was going to submit until I saw that rule :smallannoyed:, but the actual submission will be brand new.

I may have slightly misread the theme--it does use weapon attacks but it has plenty of other stuff it can do so I think it counts.

[Requilac]

Nope. I have a different one that I have posted before that I was going to submit until I saw that rule :smallannoyed:, but the actual submission will be brand new.

I may have slightly misread the theme--it does use weapon attacks but it has plenty of other stuff it can do so I think it counts.

Using weapon attacks is fine, and without that this would be quite the competition, your class just can't have to focus on them. I would classify the rogue as a good class to represent this concept, and take into account just how many attack rolls they make.

[PhoenixPhyre]

Using weapon attacks is fine, and without that this would be quite the competition, your class just can't have to focus on them. I would classify the rogue as a good class to represent this concept, and take into account just how many attack rolls they make.

Ah good. I'll post it tomorrow then.

[Requilac]

Just to stimulate some possibly interesting conversation and clear up any rules confusion, who plans on entering the competition later but does not yet have a fully built class so has yet to post it? Don’t feel the need to answer this, I am just doing this out of curiosity and to see how much attention this thread got.

[thegreatone5224]

Whenever I end up with enough time to do so I will make a class for this.

[clash]

I have plans to post something as well

[WarrentheHero]

I saw someone posted a Google Drive link as a pdf... How do I do that? I finished my class on Google Drive, but don't know the best way to share it here. I know how to get a shareable link, but I liked the look and un-edit-ableness of the pdf.

[PhoenixPhyre]

I saw someone posted a Google Drive link as a pdf... How do I do that? I finished my class on Google Drive, but don't know the best way to share it here. I know how to get a shareable link, but I liked the look and un-edit-ableness of the pdf.

I ended up saving it to PDF (using the download feature), then uploading it and sharing it.

[Sindeloke]

Just to stimulate some possibly interesting conversation and clear up any rules confusion, who plans on entering the competition later but does not yet have a fully built class so has yet to post it? Don’t feel the need to answer this, I am just doing this out of curiosity and to see how much attention this thread got.

I might throw my Marshal on the pile if I can think of a capstone in time.

[Requilac]

I may participate if I get some inspiration.
Placeholder thread for my entry if I do.

I could help you to come up with a concept if you would like me to. Nothing mechanical really, but if you need any ideas I could suggest some.

[clash]

What are the rules regarding spell alternatives? Things like arcane archer shots, Battle master dice and the like?

[MoleMage]

Any feedback anyone wanted to provide on the Spiritcaller so far would be appreciated. I'd be happy to swap feedbacks with anyone else or multiple elses also.

Gonna be back tomorrow to try and finish that up.

[Requilac]

What are the rules regarding spell alternatives? Things like arcane archer shots, Battle master dice and the like?

The idea behind this contest was to create classes which use interesting features outside of spell-casting, so spell alternatives would be frowned upon, but you are not technically going to get punished for your class to have such a feature. It might lose you votes, but its not going to get you disqualified or invalidated.


Any feedback anyone wanted to provide on the Spiritcaller so far would be appreciated. I'd be happy to swap feedbacks with anyone else or multiple elses also.

Gonna be back tomorrow to try and finish that up.

I would be willing to review your class once it is fully built if you would like me to. I just cannot necessarily do so immediately and it may take me a few days.

[MoleMage]

I would be willing to review your class once it is fully built if you would like me to. I just cannot necessarily do so immediately and it may take me a few days.

I have properly finished the class features, but not the proofreading. No rush on review, you have a generous deadline for this contest.

[WarrentheHero]

So, my class is pretty complicated with regards to many of the options available to it. I've put it all into as plain, simple text as possible, but there's still the possibility of questions regarding edge cases and things like that. Is it allowable to post a companion FAQ-esque document alongside it? It won't add any content, it will just be a a few answers to "But what if I do X"- type questions. On the one hand, it might clear up confusion before there is any, but on the other, I can see how one might think that "clarity of class features" is a voting issue and thus the class should stand without a helper. Thoughts on the matter?

[Requilac]

So, my class is pretty complicated with regards to many of the options available to it. I've put it all into as plain, simple text as possible, but there's still the possibility of questions regarding edge cases and things like that. Is it allowable to post a companion FAQ-esque document alongside it? It won't add any content, it will just be a a few answers to "But what if I do X"- type questions. On the one hand, it might clear up confusion before there is any, but on the other, I can see how one might think that "clarity of class features" is a voting issue and thus the class should stand without a helper. Thoughts on the matter?

I don’t see anything wrong with that. An FAQ companion seems perfectly by the rules to me.

[MoleMage]

I've been reading the other two classes that are up so far and here are my thoughts.

General

We could make a party with just these characters and a healer. Someone submit a healer so that a party entirely from this contest is viable.
I'm not an expert on balance. Or on design philosophy. Please take all of my commentary with a teaspoon or so of salt.


Protean

Class table says "Master of Corruption", class feature is named "Master of Mutations" in description.
I was initially wary of the constitution-based class features but you've given what is clearly meant to be a front-line participant a 1d8 hit die and terrible armor options, which definitely compensates for having such a heavy Con reliance.
Instinctive Adaptation's effect feels like it could have been a mutation. The name of the feature initially made me think "faster use of a mutation".
Typo on claws says "you add your modifier to this damage roll as well" but doesn't specify which modifier. I think by context maybe proficiency bonus since you already specified that they are finesse?
Claws perfect mutation says you can attack twice with them as a bonus action instead of once. Is that for dual-wielding?
Extendable Reach and Tunneling Limbs are difficult to use because the arms slot is occupied by both provided Chaotic Strains.
Spiny Carapace should probably use a reaction for the amount of damage it does. For comparison, the spiked-armor-using Battlerager from Sword Coast Adventurer's Guide does 3 damage when struck in melee and requires the character to be raging to trigger.
Rapid growth doesn't specify how often it can be used or what type of rest recovers it.
Love the return of the hulking hurler.


You'll notice that most of my comments above are proofreading rather than mechanical; this is intentional. I think that overall you've done a very good job of building a functional class that matches your design space mechanically. I would play this class if I wanted to be weird and I am pretty sure that I would feel weird while playing it. Additionally, by my inexpert casual observation, it looks to be within the power curve of existing classes.

Investigator (commentary made before archetypes were finished)

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


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

[PhoenixPhyre]

Protean

1) Class table says "Master of Corruption", class feature is named "Master of Mutations" in description.
2) I was initially wary of the constitution-based class features but you've given what is clearly meant to be a front-line participant a 1d8 hit die and terrible armor options, which definitely compensates for having such a heavy Con reliance.
3) Instinctive Adaptation's effect feels like it could have been a mutation. The name of the feature initially made me think "faster use of a mutation".
4) Typo on claws says "you add your modifier to this damage roll as well" but doesn't specify which modifier. I think by context maybe proficiency bonus since you already specified that they are finesse?
5) Claws perfect mutation says you can attack twice with them as a bonus action instead of once. Is that for dual-wielding?
6) Extendable Reach and Tunneling Limbs are difficult to use because the arms slot is occupied by both provided Chaotic Strains.
7) Spiny Carapace should probably use a reaction for the amount of damage it does. For comparison, the spiked-armor-using Battlerager from Sword Coast Adventurer's Guide does 3 damage when struck in melee and requires the character to be raging to trigger.
8) Rapid growth doesn't specify how often it can be used or what type of rest recovers it.
9) Love the return of the hulking hurler.


You'll notice that most of my comments above are proofreading rather than mechanical; this is intentional. I think that overall you've done a very good job of building a functional class that matches your design space mechanically. I would play this class if I wanted to be weird and I am pretty sure that I would feel weird while playing it. Additionally, by my inexpert casual observation, it looks to be within the power curve of existing classes.


Thanks for the good words. A few responses--

General: yeah, this one's designed to be weird. On purpose. It's designed to be a "that looks screwy, what the @#$#@ is that" class. I'm big on body horror for some reason.

1) Oops. I changed my fluff description and thought I had caught all the changes.
2) Yeah, I wanted it to have a reason to pump CON--making CON an active thing. But on a heavy armor or high HD class that would have been overkill.
3) I wanted some of the "good at varying environments" to be automatic with no opportunity cost. I could tweak the name a bit though.
4) It's designed to be your attack modifier (STR or DEX)--basically you have the TWF fighting style with the claws only (add modifier to damage roll for offhand).
5) Yes. The claws come separately (I should make that more clear) so you can hold a regular weapon in 1 hand and use the claws as the offhand OR use claws in both, for a total of 2 regular attacks (could be claw or manufactured) and 2 bonus action attacks. It's basically the monk while flurrying, but trading the strong control options (ie Stunning Strike) for a bit more consistent damage.
6) Extended reach is the one I was considering changing, or possibly making a special case for the two Strain ones (making them subclass features that don't occupy that slot, since they already don't take up an active mutation slot). Tunneling I was considering as an out of combat thing. You can switch to the combat mutations as a bonus action, so it's only a minor cost, but I'd like to allow for reach if possible.
7) Probably true. The class only has limited use for reactions as it stands, so that would work.
8) That's intentional. It's designed to be at-will (since you don't get another source of damage unlike the more attacks from the claw). Too much? It could be CON-mod/LR.
9) :smallsmile: The image of a player bowling with enemies (or throwing the halfling at an enemy) is just too iconic. It's totally something the Hulk would do.

[JNAProductions]

Posting in to take roll. I've been in the hospital, but will work soon.

[MoleMage]

Thanks for the good words. A few responses--

General: yeah, this one's designed to be weird. On purpose. It's designed to be a "that looks screwy, what the @#$#@ is that" class. I'm big on body horror for some reason.

8) That's intentional. It's designed to be at-will (since you don't get another source of damage unlike the more attacks from the claw). Too much? It could be CON-mod/LR.


I worked some of that math out, and it looks like Skulker leads at level 3 for ability bonus +4 and +5, trails after extra attack at level 5 regardless of ability bonus until perfect mutation, at which point it again leads for ability bonus +4 or higher by a smaller margin since by that point brute gets crushing grip (also leads at ability bonus +3 once mutation dice improve to 1d10 at level 17).

So Rapid Growth is stronger through the middle tiers but weaker at both ends. I was considering it in comparison to barbarian rage (which is limited until 20), since Rapid Growth's damage boost is higher than rage's at all levels (using average die value), but accounting for the other bonuses rage grants, I think rage is an overall stronger mechanic and you can probably justify unlimited rapid growth. Besides, I think that even without rage barbarians out DPR Brute because they get heavy weapons and reckless attack so they can use Great Weapon Master.

[PhoenixPhyre]

I worked some of that math out, and it looks like Skulker leads at level 3 for ability bonus +4 and +5, trails after extra attack at level 5 regardless of ability bonus until perfect mutation, at which point it again leads for ability bonus +4 or higher by a smaller margin since by that point brute gets crushing grip (also leads at ability bonus +3 once mutation dice improve to 1d10 at level 17).

So Rapid Growth is stronger through the middle tiers but weaker at both ends. I was considering it in comparison to barbarian rage (which is limited until 20), since Rapid Growth's damage boost is higher than rage's at all levels (using average die value), but accounting for the other bonuses rage grants, I think rage is an overall stronger mechanic and you can probably justify unlimited rapid growth. Besides, I think that even without rage barbarians out DPR Brute because they get heavy weapons and reckless attack so they can use Great Weapon Master.

Good. I'm not too worried about relatively small differences, especially since Brute gets the grappling going while Skulker has defensive advantages.

And both have more utility and variation than a barbarian, so I'd expect the barb to be better in a straight up DPR race.

[Lanth Sor]

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

[Jormengand]

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

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

[MoleMage]

Daredevil:

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


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

[JNAProductions]

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

[Requilac]

Investigator (commentary made before archetypes were finished)

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


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

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

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

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

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


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

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

[Requilac]

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

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

[JNAProductions]

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

[Jormengand]

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


It's odd in 5e for a class to have conditions which cause you to lose class features. Mechanically this is sound it just doesn't exist on any published class so I don't have anything to compare it to. Also it means that there's no way for them to heal outside of resting (unless one of their tricks gives them healing).
This is a holdover from the 3.5 daredevil - and the other 3.5 classes with the same feature. All of these classes were exceptionally powerful in 3.5 (the daredevil got a bonus equal to a little under double their level to all d20 rolls and damage rolls, and ended up giving themselves quintuple-advantage and enemies double-disadvantage by level 20, and other horrible class features that didn't even make it into the 5e one).

They will have some way of healing, yeah.


Tricks work but the wording is odd. Look at the wording on Warlock invocations for a similar class feature type.
Fair enough; I can reword this.


Shrug off is strange to me. They can spend hit points to negate death? There's no way for a dead character to have more than 0 hit points in 5e.
Suppose a daredevil with 75 hit points is hit with an effect which would normally cause death. The daredevil can either die, or pay 50 hit points to avoid dying, dropping down to 25 hit points. A daredevil with 40 hit points, however, has no ability to avoid the effect and must die.


Proficiency in more saves fits the theme, and isn't notably stronger than paladin of devotions +cha to all saves (even when they get proficiency in all saves, the paladin probably has a +3 or 4 to all saves as an aura). It gives the class a unique power niche.
Of course, the monk gets it at level 14 too.


Advantage on everything is thematic, but might be too strong when considering multiclassing or the interplay of advantage and disadvantage. Maybe allow the daredevil to reroll any check, save, or attack, but they must take the new result?
That's almost exactly the same as advantage anyway if you have a clue what the DC is, and one thing I hate about 5e is not making the DCs clear.


On that subject, Double Down sounds like an "active" ability, while Second Guess sounds like a "utility" ability to me. I think their mechanics fit better if the names are swapped.
On the other hand, double down sounds more like a defensive ability, at least to me.


Escape Unscathed is a good upgrade to Uncanny Dodge, but doesn't feel strong compared to Double Down or Second Guess. A reaction is still limited to one/round.
Hmm. In 3.5, it was "All damage you take is minimised with no action cost" but that's way too strong for 5e. I guess I could make it like the old 3.5 improved evasion, only with 5e uncanny dodge (you take half damage automatically, and can use your reaction to take no damage).


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

Sweet, thanks. :smallsmile:

[MoleMage]

Investigator

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


The in combat features are mostly coming from the sub-class features, which have yet to be built. If you also didn't notice, the class gets seven main class features, and six sub-class features, which means that archetype is a very crucial part of playing an Investigator. They will definitely get some things more useful in combat at early levels.
This works, but if you do it this way, you have to make sure that all sub-classes get enough combat relevant features. If you move some combat-relevant features into the main class, you open up options for sub-classes that specialize in non-combat options (like Rogue's Thief or Mastermind, or the Druid's Circle of Dreams).



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

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


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

If you are subjected to an effect that allows you to make a dexterity saving throw to take only half damage from a trap or harmful environmental factor, you instead take no damage if you succeed on the saving throw, and only half damage if you fail.
Missed the caveat. Carry on, this is fine (danger sense from the other side of the equation).

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

Daredevil

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


Of course, the monk gets it at level 14 too.
Forgot about that. Never managed to play a monk past level 4 or so.


That's almost exactly the same as advantage anyway if you have a clue what the DC is, and one thing I hate about 5e is not making the DCs clear.
The reason I suggested it is that it doesn't interact with other mechanics the same way advantage does. For example, wording it that way doesn't allow free sneak attacks always, and if you reroll a disadvantage roll, the second roll is still with disadvantage (or, for that matter, it works with advantage).


On the other hand, double down sounds more like a defensive ability, at least to me.
Yeah this was pretty nitpicky of me. Semantics, right?


Hmm. In 3.5, it was "All damage you take is minimised with no action cost" but that's way too strong for 5e. I guess I could make it like the old 3.5 improved evasion, only with 5e uncanny dodge (you take half damage automatically, and can use your reaction to take no damage).
That's a much stronger capstone. Also fits with the theme of "being really lucky at doing things but not having special training".


Sweet, thanks. :smallsmile:
No problem. If you get time, mind checking out the Spiritcaller?


EDIT: formatting

[Jormengand]

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

EDIT: Tricks are up.

[MoleMage]

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

Marshal

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


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

The Inventor

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


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

[JNAProductions]

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

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

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

Thank you.

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

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

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

Rejiggered the order you get features in Explorer.

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

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

[MoleMage]

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

Considering it replaces your attacks, for the most part, I don't think it's a big issue. However, what changes would you recommend making to Inspiration, if you think it needs be changed?
If you want to have it stay every initiative, I would just reduce the number you get. Maybe one per proficiency bonus when you roll initiative, and you regain a number equal to Cha bonus when you use your action to refresh it? Otherwise I would make it a short rest feature, and make the action to refresh an upgrade later in the class (which itself refreshes on a short rest).


It stacks. So yes, you can hit 22 AC at level six, if you snag full plate and a shield. Might be a TOUCH high, but I'm not THAT concerned about it-do you think it's an issue? (If it is, I can just say "You gain the Defense Fighting Style, or if you already have it, pick another one.")
It's defensively strong, but not unreasonably so I don't think. Bearbarians get resist all but psychic, and you're still subject to saving throws at the same rate as normal. I just noticed they were identical and wondered about intent.


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

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


And there's actually another PC Class that never gets resource management-the Rogue. Their only resource feature is at level 20. (And, if you dip Monk 1 after Rogue 19, you'll be level 20 with absolutely no resources except HP and Hit Dice. Assuming not AT, of course.)
See this is what happens when I don't finish my coffee before reading classes. I miss obvious details like this. Dang rogue not having any core features that require a rest.


Overall, thank you very much for the feedback, MoleMage! I might add some fluff in a bit, but for now, glad it's mechanically sound.
My pleasure! I hope I didn't come across too negative. I feel like I do that sometimes when providing feedback.

[Jormengand]

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

[WarrentheHero]

The Inventor
First I just want to thank you for the feedback!


Throughout the class you use consistent crafting rules that appear to be borrowed from older editions. However, Xanathar's Guide describes crafting during downtime, and as long as a character is proficient in the relevant tool and puts in the time and resources, they always succeed on the craft no check required. Given that this class relies on their craftworks in order to function, you might use those rules instead of the ones from older editions.
I admit that the crafting is inspired by older editions, but for good reason- In my opinion, part of the charm of an builder class is the act of building itself. If the appeal is that you make things, it should feel like you're making things, and sometimes things go wrong with that. In extended campaign, this often comes down to "I spend a week while we're in town in my workshop, here are my rolls, I succeeded on these three but had to re-try my fourth". It's a hassle, but that's because building is hassle. I feel like if the class just gave results for Inventions, it would lose some of the impact and feeling of accomplishment of building your Invention

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


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


Retrofit is a nice feel-good class improvement. Can you also remove features from an invention when retrofitting it?
The design intent is that you can only add features. Your DM could easily rule that you could remove features, but that's not what I had in mind.

Signature Mechanism mentions "Clockwork Mechanism" instead of "Clockwork Dynamo".

Is there a specific reason that Trapsmith has different rules for non-magical traps? 5e doesn't mark a distinction between magical and non-magical traps normally. If this is just to fit the flavor of the class that's one thing but if you were worried about balance allowing magical traps wouldn't break it (nor do I think that it is underpowered as it stands. In fact, I'm going to strike this whole comment out before posting). You struckthrough so I assume you redacted the critique, but I'll respond for clarity. It's absolutely to fit the flavor of the class more than any balance issue. If a class is designed around physical, mechanical items, it doesn't make sense that they're suddenly able to interface with magic. At the same time, they are experienced trap-makers, and a magical trap is still a trap, so there's a smaller bonus. This is an instance in which 5e's Advantage mechanic (which I love) can be a hindrance, as the system's design follows "if you're good at it, advantage", without much room for different 'tiers' of good-ness.


Inventor's Acumen makes you better at fighting organic non-aberrant creatures (which have discernable anatomy), but not any better at fighting constructs (which have no anatomy). This feels backwards for a class so focused on mechanisms. On that note, "discernable anatomy" is not to my knowledge used anywhere in 5e anymore.
You're right about constructs; I didn't fully think that one through. Changed. As for discernable anatomy, it is an archaic term, but I think even without experience with older editions, its meaning and intent can be parsed pretty easily. Gelatinous Cubes and Gibbering Mouthers are just piles of ooze and flesh, no real anatomy. Humans, robots, dragons, all have a working understandable anatomy.


The fourth base gadget invention should probably specify that it has to be triggered, rather than activated. Otherwise it is just better than the fifth base gadget. If I read the intent wrong (I assumed one was meant as a trap, the other as an actively wielded item), disregard this comment.
The great and difficult thing about Inventions, especially the Gadgets, is that there is no real intent. Both can be actively wielded items, or both traps. If you want to make a flamethrower, you'd use the fourth Invention. If you wanted to make a servo-gauntlet to enhance your punches, that's the fifth. If you want to make a trap that showers the target with spikes, that could be the first. If you want to make a trap that launches a single spear at a target, that's the fifth.



You've lost a sidebar from the Gadget's page in your formatting.
Autonomous Invention lost a column in the formatting. There should probably be an upper limit on AC bonus it can receive or a diminishing return similar to the speed upgrade.
Elixer of Life and Bombs were lost to formatting. Is there an upper limit on the number of simultaneous alchemical creations you can make or is it just limited by money and logic?
Hmm.. not sure what's going on there. It's formatted just fine for me on desktop and mobile. I'll drop them in a spoiler here just in case, I suppose.


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


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

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

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


You've discovered the ultimate Alchemical Secret: Immortality

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


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

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

The Bomb’s radius increases by 5 feet.
The Bomb does 1d8 Acid, Cold, Fire, Lightning, or Poison damage.
If the Bomb does damage increases that damage by 1d8. You may select this multiple times, to a maximum of three total times.
This Bomb requires a Constitution saving throw and Poisons the target for 1 minute, or Incapacitates the target until the start of your next turn. At the end of each of its turns, a creature may repeat this save, ending the Poisoned condition on itself on a success. Choose which of these two effects is used when you create the Recipe.
The Bomb restrains the target. The target may use an action to make an Acrobatics or Athletics check against your Invention DC, ending the effect on a success.
This bomb requires a Wisdom saving throw. On a failure, effected creatures are Charmed by you for 1 minute. A creature has advantage on this save if it is hostile to you or your allies. A creature can repeat this save at the end of each of its turns, ending the effect in itself on a success.
This bomb requires a Wisdom saving throw. On a failure, effected creatures or Frightened by you for 1 minute. A creature can repeat this save at the end of each of its turns, ending the effect in itself on a success.
This bomb creates an obscuring mist in a 20-foot radius. This mist heavily obscures the area for 30 seconds, and then lightly obscures the area, after which time it dissipates. The mist can be dispersed by a sufficiently strong wind.
This Bomb requires a Constitution saving throw. On a failure, effected creatures are Blinded and Deafened for 1 minute. On a success, it is instead Blinded and Deafened until the end of your next turn. A creature can repeat this save at the end of each of its turns, ending the effect in itself on a success.
This Bomb requires a Dexterity or Strength saving throw, chosen when its Recipe is created. On a failure, an effected creature is knocked prone.
Alchemical Concoctions are limited by Invention Points. Drafting a Recipe requires Invention Points, and if you destroy the Recipe, you currently existing Concoctions brewed with that recipe go inert shortly thereafter. If you mean how many you can have total, rather than how many kinds, there is no listed upper limit. As many as you can afford! But all have a maximum lifespan of 12 days (7 days active, then cumulative +20% chance of failing for every day after).


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




The alchemist's supplies weapon invention could require refueling with an appropriate substance instead of breaking down after use.
Ablative armor could have a reactivation condition (use an action to reactivate, the Inventor can refresh the ability after a short or long rest, etc) instead of breaking down after a single use.
One of my initial outlines for this class included such a mechanic, but I realized that the way I would write it would ultimately end up as a differently-worded form of rebuilding it. The problem with that is that while it's inactive (while its uses are up), it would still take an Invention Point as it would be on the item, just not used. So I have them break down instead to immediatley refund the Invention Point as soon as its not useful. That said, I've been tossing around the idea of changing Ablative Armor to reduce its bonus by 1 for each it, so it's not as much a one-and-done feature.


Your firearm table for the rifle has a "Reload" column, which is referred to in all text as "ammo".
Just a holdover from a previous draft in which I forgot "Ammunition" was a property that existed, so having "Ammo" too would also be confusing.



I don't like scrap, personally. I feel like the class's limitations on making things are already well managed with Invention points, and spending what is essentially money for what are essentially core features doesn't feel good for players. For Black Powder's ammo, you could give them a class feature that converts standard arrows instead. Further, the downtime requirements of the Inventor would be a burden on the rest of the party as well. If you specified that they could continue to work during brief breaks in adventuring (basically everything we as players would gloss over because it isn't interesting), it would reduce that impact. If you extend it to normal crafting as well, it becomes a cool ribbon feature.
Scrap is weirdly one the most contentious class features for those outside the Playground I've run my earlier drafts by. I stand by it. It would be easier to simply say Inventions cost gold, or cost nothing at all. But where's the fun in that? Scrap is mostly a ribbon already, but it does provide a way to create a way to give a sort of gold-value to Inventions. I've toyed with the idea of creating a Sidebar Variant that just uses gold instead, at a ratio of 1 scrap = 2 gold, but never went through with it.
The thing about Scrap is that it honestly is not very expensive, and the levels at which you hit features that require a lot of Scrap, you should easily have that much in Scrap easily. Remember, every goblin's set of armor, every quarrel of arrows, every shortsword and crossbow, can be broken down into scrap. At level 1-3 it might be more in the party's interest to sell these items, but they quickly become forgotten and secondary, to the point where players don't even think of an enemy's armor and weapon if they aren't specifically being called out as something notable.


This class would work very well in a low magic campaign, but you haven't given any suggestions for interactions between inventions and magic. Can firearms be enchanted? Do alchemical formulae employ magic? If so, are their products magical or just the process? These questions aren't required in order for the class to be complete, but I am still curious on a personal level.
The interaction of alchemy with magic is intentionally ambiguous. It's implied by the subclass description to be physical, but in your campaign world it very much could be magical in nature. That's a campaign-level question rather than a class-level question, similar to how a Monk's Ki is described in the class's flavor text as being magical, but no-one ever uses it that way. It's what you want. As for Firearms, I don't see why they couldn't be enchanted. They are weapons, after all. But there's a risk, as Firearms can break permanently if you roll their Misfire once Damaged, so be careful, or have a friend cast Magic Weapon a lot!

[Requilac]

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


Investigator

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

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

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

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

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

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

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




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

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



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

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

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

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

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




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


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

[MoleMage]

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


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

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


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


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


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

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


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


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

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

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

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


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

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


The great and difficult thing about Inventions, especially the Gadgets, is that there is no real intent. Both can be actively wielded items, or both traps. If you want to make a flamethrower, you'd use the fourth Invention. If you wanted to make a servo-gauntlet to enhance your punches, that's the fifth. If you want to make a trap that showers the target with spikes, that could be the first. If you want to make a trap that launches a single spear at a target, that's the fifth.
I see now that activating 4 is an action or trigger (happens once), whereas 5 is just an attack (happens as many times as the thing has attacks); if you're making experimental chainsaw-swords for your fighter there's a reason to use each.


Hmm.. not sure what's going on there. It's formatted just fine for me on desktop and mobile. I'll drop them in a spoiler here just in case, I suppose.
I adjusted the zoom on my page and can now see all of the details. Oddly enough, it worked at both 80% zoom and 110% zoom, but not 100% zoom.


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

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


So I have them break down instead to immediatley refund the Invention Point as soon as its not useful. That said, I've been tossing around the idea of changing Ablative Armor to reduce its bonus by 1 for each it, so it's not as much a one-and-done feature.
I just really like the idea of my fiery sword having a special contraption that distributed alchemist's fire along the blade, and when the fire stops I just slap a new bottle into the contraption and the blade is fire again. As it is, these upgrades are fairly cheap scrap-wise (but see below about scrap-bleeding).


Scrap is weirdly one the most contentious class features for those outside the Playground I've run my earlier drafts by. I stand by it. It would be easier to simply say Inventions cost gold, or cost nothing at all. But where's the fun in that? Scrap is mostly a ribbon already, but it does provide a way to create a way to give a sort of gold-value to Inventions. I've toyed with the idea of creating a Sidebar Variant that just uses gold instead, at a ratio of 1 scrap = 2 gold, but never went through with it.
My problems are two-fold. First, requiring a value assumes that your character is going to receive the standard amount of valuables. This hits close to home for me because I just recently was playing in a game (and now am playing a new character in the same setting after an almost TPK) where between level 1 and level 8 we made about 50g each (200g). Mundane equipment didn't drop off of our enemies, because they used a magical metal that tied to their life-force. Instead we got magical cards from them with consumable effects. Bosses dropped magical gear but it was all homebrew and in 5e core magic equipment explicitly lacks any equivalent value. In this circumstance, or in the circumstance that they are cut off from their normal supplies, the Inventor would be utterly unable to function.
Second, inventors only get half of the scrap back if they fail to make an item or if they decide to reclaim their invention points and make a different item. This means that even in a standard setting, they slowly bleed all of their scrap-wealth away unless they refrain from inventing new things. It encourages behavior that is opposite of the spirit of the class as I imagine it. Allowing the Inventor to reclaim 100% of scrap that they sink into an item remedies the scrap-tax that they currently suffer for being experimental, while giving a certain amount of built-in scrap or the ability to collect small amounts of scrap from non-useful materials each long rest gives them a certain Macguyver-esque draw and mitigates the lack of resources factor.

Daredevil's Tricks

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


Daredevil's Lucky Charms

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


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

[Ninja_Prawn]

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

Anyway, this is actually the sixth 5e base class contest: see here (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?493510-5e-Homebrew-Contests-Chat-Thread) for history.

[Requilac]

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


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

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

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



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

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

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

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

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



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

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

*including telepathy

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

______


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

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

[Requilac]

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

Anyway, this is actually the sixth 5e base class contest: see here (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?493510-5e-Homebrew-Contests-Chat-Thread) for history.

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

[clash]

The deadline for this contest in June 23rd correct?

[Requilac]

The deadline for this contest in June 23rd correct?

Yes, the deadline is indeed June 23rd.

[WarrentheHero]

Yes, the deadline is indeed June 23rd.

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

[Requilac]

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

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

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

[Ninja_Prawn]

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

[Requilac]

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

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

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

[Ninja_Prawn]

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

[Requilac]

@ Molemage

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


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

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

[PhoenixPhyre]

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

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

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

[Requilac]

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

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

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

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

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

[MoleMage]

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

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

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


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


We have been kind of talking past each other on many of these points, and even though we both have the best intentions it can get kind of frustrating. To that end, I will share the guide I used to design my class. (https://www.reddit.com/r/UnearthedArcana/comments/73sfp1/class_design_101_a_fundamental_guide_to_5th/) Someone shared it in a different thread and it helped me wrap my head around the design intent and commonalities shared by DnD 5e core classes (or as near as I'm likely to get without actually seeing internal memos).

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

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


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


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


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


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


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

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



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

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


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


Please continue Molemage, I need all the help I can get if I am to beat the outstanding competition I face. Thank you for all of your attempts. Please don't take it personally if I seem too agressive, I am just so terribly confused that I am not really even sure what this argument is over anymore.
It will be my pleasure. I don't like to think of it as an argument though, since we have the same end goal (making the investigator as good as it can be). We're having a board meeting maybe. Sequestered design session.

[Requilac]

@ Molemage you have been a great help to me, so it’s about time I paid my debt and committed to my promise and reviewed your class. So here is my…

Spirit Caller Commentary

Equipment
Why did you specify that they could choose a spear or a simple weapon? You could just say simple weapon, which includes spears anyway.

Guiding Spirit
I find the following clause sort of confusing. “The guiding spirit can see spiritual entities, provided they are not hidden by mortal magic.” First of all, what do you mean mechanically “see spiritual entities”? Did you mean something like the Kuo-Toa’s Otherwordly Perception (The kuo-toa can sense the presence of any creature within 30 feet of it that is invisible or on the Ethereal Plane. It can pinpoint such a creature that is moving.)? Also, you mention what qualifies as a spiritual entity later in the Ghostwise sight feature but not for this feature, so I would recommend clearing that up earlier in the description of guiding spirit to avoid confusion.


Spirit Burst
Maybe this is a tad bit too powerful for a fifth level feature. If it turns the attack into an AoE strike, it should do at least a little less damage. I would recommend decreasing it to 1d4 + your wisdom modifier for multiple enemies. It just feels weird to me that you could hit multiple enemies and deal the same damage as if you were attacking a single one. It sort of invalidates the original ability unless under the most niche of scenarios where you cannot maneuver your spirit to be 15 ft away from any allies.

Imbued Spirit
A +1-3 bonus to attack and damage rolls or AC for up to 20 minutes was nothing back in 3.5e, but it is a massive bonus in 5e. Toying around with this kind of thing is dangerous with bounded accuracy. I can’t say for certain that this is broken, but I would be extremely leery if I were to see a player possessing this ability. You are walking on some paper thin ice with this one. You should probably make it cost more, I would say 4 spirit points for a +1, 6 for a +2 and 8 for a +3 to balance it out. Otherwise this feature is way too volatile.


Eternal Spirit
I am fairly certain you mean “whenever you complete a short or long rest, your spirit regains all of its hit points.” Because I find it weird that the spirit couldn’t heal over a long rest but could over a short rest. And maybe full healing over a short rest is a bit too much considering it can get up to 100 HP. Up to 99 HP healed over a short rest is just way too much. I think you should just give it hit die to use during a short rest, otherwise it seems stronger than it needs to be.

Psychopomp's Guiding Spirit
What do you mean by the following bolded statement “When attacking an undead, the guiding spirit instead does radiant damage and the damage is increased by an additional 1d8. This effect also applies to your spirit surge, when you get that feature.”? You already say that the damage increases by 1d8 on any attack against an undead, so why do you need to specify that it still applies to attacks made with spirit surge? Does the extra 1d8 radiant damage double when used on the same attack as spirit surge or something?


Bravery’s Guiding Spirit
Slight grammatical error here, because you say “The spiritcaller may choose the type each type the spirit attacks.” I am fairly certain you mean time here.

Concerted Attack
Maybe you should remove the extra damage. This is basically a fancy version of extra attack, but the extra damage makes it superior. It feels weird to me that this class with simple weapon proficiency only can consistently dish out more damage than a ranger, paladin and barbarian. Normally I would say it's fine because you have to take a bonus action to make your attack, but the class doesn’t really have anything to do with their bonus actions anyhow so that does not make it better.


Improved Mark of the Elements
You can use it a number of times equal to your wisdom modifier and you regain all uses on a short or long rest? That is a little too much, and odds are that you will be having it up once at least every fight this way. Honestly, it's probably best to make it so that you regain all uses on a long rest but only one use on a short rest. If you don’t then it is going to be spammed beyond all belief.

Ascendance
All of these options are pretty good, but I am a little confused as to what the point of the thunder one is. How exactly are you so loud that you are knocking enemies prone? And why exactly do they gain resistance to all damage? It is lacklustre and seems to lack the desire flavor. Why don’t you make it so that every creature within 10 ft. of the spirit when it attacks is deafened and while deafened in this way they have disadvantage on attack rolls but an attack roll targeted against them has advantage (like blinded). That seems pretty cool to me. It’s a minor comment really but I would change it to something a little better.

Verdict
Over-all this is a very well designed class with a strong theme and good mechanics to match it. You did a great job detailing it out and it has very few errors in it. But I can’t help but be concerned with its power level. It doesn’t have any one feature that is highly overpowered, but there are several which are slightly more powerful than they should be, which tends to add up. If I was a DM I would allow a player to use this class, but I also would be incredibly nervous and hesitant to do so. Maybe you should take a look over what you did and ask yourself “did I make this feature stronger than it needs to be?”. This may be just me being overly paranoid though, because I am already playing a scene out in my head of a fight between a Bravery Spiritcaller and an a War Cleric and I am seeing that cleric last for quite some time before falling.

[Jormengand]

The only thing I immediately notice about spiritcaller that hasn't really been already said is that you refer to "The spiritcaller" a lot when the 5e standard is to use "You".



Anyone else have commentary on the Daredevil?

[JNAProductions]

Daredevil-Note that I'll skip over abilities I have no comment on.

Just Plain Lucky... I doubt it's OVERPOWERED, it's just really finicky. Like, annoyingly so.

Second Guess... I mean, I guess it's a level 11 ability, so hard to stack with stuff. But it does negate a lot of tactics involving gaining advantage, since you already have it.

Better Lucky Than Clever just has a weird name-Clever=/=Wise, at least to me.

Double Down, combined with proficiency in every gorram save, will make you such a hassle to kill.

Overall... A little finicky for 5E, but the biggest thing I think needs improvement is that it's just bad at most things. It doesn't get good skills, really, it gets only simple weapons and never gets extra attack, it doesn't fight well... It basically gets better odds on things it can succeed at, via advantage, but never gets the ability to do much more than that. I would never play it in its current state, because its biggest claim to fame is being annoyingly hard to kill, but it can't be enough of a threat or an asset to make that really a PARTY advantage.

[PhoenixPhyre]

I've updated my Protean entry with some (minor) changes. Each sub-class can now keep its combat mutation active as well as another arms/hands mutation. While you can always use the other sub-classes's combat mutation, you don't get this benefit unless its the one you got from your own sub-class.

[PhoenixPhyre]

Now paying back some of the help I've gotten (mostly in proof-reading and impressions rather than in numerical work):

Starting with the Investigator (@Requilac):

* I'd love to see some introductory fluff to give a picture of what the class is about and get a visual on the play-style.
* Wording issue in Perfect Analyst (point 3): horribly confusing as to intent. Same basic issue with all the "difference of X - 10" features. I think I know what those are trying to say, but I'd be loath to put any confidence in it.
* Formatting: Class features usually don't have the level in the title but in the body.
* Telepathy: Can't give *anyone* that information...telepathically? verbally? Body language?
* Naming: If you're already a perfect analyst at level 1, how can your analysis be enhanced at level 2?
* Reword UA/Help: maybe something like "You can take the Help action to aid an ally in making an attack roll as long as the ally can be..."
* Incomplete level 9 sub-class features
* Typos
** Unconventional Actions: "ohters"
** Blindsight, "your other sense" should be plural)
** Fend _off_ the mob

General notes: Seems under-tuned for combat. Seriously so, in fact, although with weird spikes (Predator's Instinct). With no extra attack and no constant-effect source of extra damage, you're hurting for combat power and lack the increases common at tier boundaries (levels 5, 11, and 17).

[sengmeng]

Would it be considered a violation of contest rules if my entry in this contest is a 5e version of my entry in the 3.5 base class challenge?

[Jormengand]

Would it be considered a violation of contest rules if my entry in this contest is a 5e version of my entry in the 3.5 base class challenge?

Given that I submitted an update to the daredevil from way back in the incompetence round, I sure hope not!

[Requilac]

Now paying back some of the help I've gotten (mostly in proof-reading and impressions rather than in numerical work):

Starting with the Investigator (@Requilac):

* I'd love to see some introductory fluff to give a picture of what the class is about and get a visual on the play-style.
* Wording issue in Perfect Analyst (point 3): horribly confusing as to intent. Same basic issue with all the "difference of X - 10" features. I think I know what those are trying to say, but I'd be loath to put any confidence in it.
* Formatting: Class features usually don't have the level in the title but in the body.
* Telepathy: Can't give *anyone* that information...telepathically? verbally? Body language?
* Naming: If you're already a perfect analyst at level 1, how can your analysis be enhanced at level 2?
* Reword UA/Help: maybe something like "You can take the Help action to aid an ally in making an attack roll as long as the ally can be..."
* Incomplete level 9 sub-class features
* Typos
** Unconventional Actions: "ohters"
** Blindsight, "your other sense" should be plural)
** Fend _off_ the mob

General notes: Seems under-tuned for combat. Seriously so, in fact, although with weird spikes (Predator's Instinct). With no extra attack and no constant-effect source of extra damage, you're hurting for combat power and lack the increases common at tier boundaries (levels 5, 11, and 17).

The investigator is still a work in progress keep in mind, and has a lot of work left to be done. The “weak in combat” has been brought up multiple time. I can assure you that this is not extremely close to what the final class will look like. There is much work left to be done, if you couldn’t tell. I started it a week ago, I couldn’t have whipped up a finished product that quickly.

[PhoenixPhyre]

The investigator is still a work in progress keep in mind, and has a lot of work left to be done. The “weak in combat” has been brought up multiple time. I can assure you that this is not extremely close to what the final class will look like. There is much work left to be done, if you couldn’t tell. I started it a week ago, I couldn’t have whipped up a finished product that quickly.

I look forward to seeing the completed version.

[Requilac]

Would it be considered a violation of contest rules if my entry in this contest is a 5e version of my entry in the 3.5 base class challenge?

If the one you are submitting for the 5e one is going to have different mechanics than the 3.5e version (which I think it would have to) it is fine. Jormengard already did something similar with his/her/their* class

* (not sure what pronoun I should use)

[Requilac]

Glad to see that we are beginning to understand each-other more.




We have been kind of talking past each other on many of these points, and even though we both have the best intentions it can get kind of frustrating. To that end, I will share the guide I used to design my class. (https://www.reddit.com/r/UnearthedArcana/comments/73sfp1/class_design_101_a_fundamental_guide_to_5th/) Someone shared it in a different thread and it helped me wrap my head around the design intent and commonalities shared by DnD 5e core classes (or as near as I'm likely to get without actually seeing internal memos).

That was certainly a good read, although in truth I must say that I have recognized and implement almost all of those points. Except for one that is, one which many people have pointed out, as the tier upgrades. If I am being honest, I had never thought about that before, but it does indeed make quite a bit of sense now that I look at it. I will need to think about how to implement such a thing.




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


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

I am not sure whether you actually wanted me to answer these or not, but answer them anyway I shall.

1) The investigator's role outside of combat is that of a person who focuses on exploring an discovering infromation but in combat it is supposed to support allies by finding weaknesses or strength in an enemy and getting them to leverage it against enemies.
2) When you plan as an Investigator you should feel as if your character isn't just booksmart, but also a sort of genius which can not only discover information but apply it in the most useful way possible. It advertises you more in a supporting role when it comes to fighting yes, but the other players should always be able to recognize that you were a key factor in their success.
3) Whenever possible you will be using your action to take advantage of flawless analyst (formerly perfect analyst) using your bonus action, but with your main action you should still be making weapon attacks and laying on the extra damage.
4) You should also be able to take care of the less glamorous tasks which no else can afford to do because of action economy limits (such as distracting an enemy from attacking an ally, searching for hidden enemies, and stabilizing unconscious friends).
5) When not in combat you can be doing a massive variety of different things, though most of it is taking advantage of all four of your skills and expertise to discover information anyway possible.
6) 3 and 4 do indeed align with the play fantasy. You are never in the front line, but without you assisting your allies or helping them with the minor tasks they can't afford to do, then they would never succeed.
7) Without a doubt, your out of combat role is quite self explanatory by the name.
8) If you can't get enough of the spotlight, then it will not be satisfactory to you, and although your actions are not immediately noticed they are a massive boon to you and your allies.

It is no secret that this class is very conceptually similar to the rogue, but they have such different mechanics that I am not all that worried about it. Their mechanical similarities are only expertise really, so I am satisfied in that regard.




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

I don't believe I fully understand your cases for its in combat use, but I will aim to give it more in combat benefits. Perhaps it will make more sense when the fluff is fully written out.



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

I understand that some of the options for flawless analyst aren't all that great, but they could matter sometimes, and ultimately I just wanted to provide as many options as I could to increase its over-all power.



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

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

You make some good points indeed. I shall ponder how to pull such a thing off. Making it more interesting over time is indeed something I could aim to pull off.



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

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

I will have to agree with you now, though not necessarily for the reasons you might think. I am changing it because I don't see anything wrong with sharing that information with multiple people, not because all of that hubbub with telepathy in the MM. The restrictions and level 13 upgrade were all something I came up with in an instant and weren't to attached to.



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

True, true, its not really an argument is it. "I like the word sequestered design session far better".

[Jormengand]

Overall... A little finicky for 5E, but the biggest thing I think needs improvement is that it's just bad at most things. It doesn't get good skills, really, it gets only simple weapons and never gets extra attack, it doesn't fight well... It basically gets better odds on things it can succeed at, via advantage, but never gets the ability to do much more than that. I would never play it in its current state, because its biggest claim to fame is being annoyingly hard to kill, but it can't be enough of a threat or an asset to make that really a PARTY advantage.

Hmm. What should I add to make daredevils actually good at doing stuff?

[MoleMage]

Equipment
The wording is used to indicate the iconic weapon of the class. Barbarian does the same thing with a) a greataxe or b) any martial melee weapon, and a number of classes offer a)a light crossbow and 20 bolts or b) any simple weapon (though I guess that pairing includes ammo in one half and not in the other).


Guiding Spirit
I find the following clause sort of confusing. “The guiding spirit can see spiritual entities, provided they are not hidden by mortal magic.” First of all, what do you mean mechanically “see spiritual entities”? Did you mean something like the Kuo-Toa’s Otherwordly Perception (The kuo-toa can sense the presence of any creature within 30 feet of it that is invisible or on the Ethereal Plane. It can pinpoint such a creature that is moving.)? Also, you mention what qualifies as a spiritual entity later in the Ghostwise sight feature but not for this feature, so I would recommend clearing that up earlier in the description of guiding spirit to avoid confusion.
I will update the wording on the guiding spirit for clarity. Also, I noticed while reviewing the marshal that my class's pet has more HP than is normal (5 per level instead of 4), so I'll fix that to be in line with beast master's progression.


Spirit Burst
Maybe this is a tad bit too powerful for a fifth level feature. If it turns the attack into an AoE strike, it should do at least a little less damage. I would recommend decreasing it to 1d4 + your wisdom modifier for multiple enemies. It just feels weird to me that you could hit multiple enemies and deal the same damage as if you were attacking a single one. It sort of invalidates the original ability unless under the most niche of scenarios where you cannot maneuver your spirit to be 15 ft away from any allies.
You're right. I was balancing it against Sun Soul Monk, which I thought got the radiant sphere at 6 but actually gets it at 11. I'll move this feature to Improved Spirit Surge's slot at level 14 (and maybe remove Improved Spirit Surge), and replace it with some other attack upgrade for the spirit (not increased damage since that's included in 2/3 archetypes or extra attack since that benefits Psychopomp and Bravery too much and Elements less by comparison, but maybe a ranged attack option or attacks counting as magical?).


Imbued Spirit
A +1-3 bonus to attack and damage rolls or AC for up to 20 minutes was nothing back in 3.5e, but it is a massive bonus in 5e. Toying around with this kind of thing is dangerous with bounded accuracy. I can’t say for certain that this is broken, but I would be extremely leery if I were to see a player possessing this ability. You are walking on some paper thin ice with this one. You should probably make it cost more, I would say 4 spirit points for a +1, 6 for a +2 and 8 for a +3 to balance it out. Otherwise this feature is way too volatile.
The damage effect was modeled after the magic weapon spell with a modified duration. The AC doesn't have a direct comparison, but Shield of Faith is a 1st level spell that's +2 AC with no rider that it must be non-magical. The higher cost wouldn't be too brutal since spirit points are short rest, I will implement that. Should I also include a specification that Imbued Spirit doesn't stack with magic that gives an increase to armor class? I can see a problem with stacking from Shield of Faith and Imbued Spirit. It already doesn't stack with existing magical weapons or armor (like with magic weapon). For comparison, magic weapon becomes available to full casters at 3, allows for a +2 at 7, and allows for a +3 at 11. Should I make this feature require concentration as though concentrating as a spell (maybe I can change the guiding spirit bonus to "doesn't require concentration" instead of "get both bonuses" if I do)?



Eternal Spirit
I am fairly certain you mean “whenever you complete a short or long rest, your spirit regains all of its hit points.” Because I find it weird that the spirit couldn’t heal over a long rest but could over a short rest. And maybe full healing over a short rest is a bit too much considering it can get up to 100 HP. Up to 99 HP healed over a short rest is just way too much. I think you should just give it hit die to use during a short rest, otherwise it seems stronger than it needs to be.
That was how the feature is supposed to work; the spirit already regains all hit points on a long rest per the base feature. I'll fix the wording here to indicate both using an "in addition to". For balance, even after I drop the HP from 5/level to 4/level, I see how this is too much (especially with guardian spirit 4 levels later. What if I made it something like this: "in addition to healing normally when you complete a long rest, your spirit recovers hit points up to half its maximum value when you complete a short rest". I didn't want to give the spirit its own hit dice because of bookkeeping concerns, but if healing to half seems off-balance I could make it so that when the spiritcaller spends hit dice to heal during a short rest, it also heals its spirit by an equal amount.


Psychopomp's Guiding Spirit
What do you mean by the following bolded statement “When attacking an undead, the guiding spirit instead does radiant damage and the damage is increased by an additional 1d8. This effect also applies to your spirit surge, when you get that feature.”? You already say that the damage increases by 1d8 on any attack against an undead, so why do you need to specify that it still applies to attacks made with spirit surge? Does the extra 1d8 radiant damage double when used on the same attack as spirit surge or something?

Mostly for redundancy's sake. The intended effect was that undead affected by spirit burst take the damage they would take from an attack, but since it required a save instead of an attack roll, the strict reading would be that the spirit does its necrotic damage always when using spirit burst instead of its radiant + extra die when undead were affected.



Bravery’s Guiding Spirit
Slight grammatical error here, because you say “The spiritcaller may choose the type each type the spirit attacks.” I am fairly certain you mean time here.
That is what I meant. I'll correct this.


Concerted Attack
Maybe you should remove the extra damage. This is basically a fancy version of extra attack, but the extra damage makes it superior. It feels weird to me that this class with simple weapon proficiency only can consistently dish out more damage than a ranger, paladin and barbarian. Normally I would say it's fine because you have to take a bonus action to make your attack, but the class doesn’t really have anything to do with their bonus actions anyhow so that does not make it better.
Not true, spirit surge is a bonus action to trigger, and most of their normal damage budget is tied up in that feature (whether they give it to someone else or to their spirit). Concerted Attack is an alternative for when they are out of spirit points or wish to conserve them. If I made it require them to occupy the same space as in Spiritual Shield would that bring it closer to in line (as they'd have to engage in melee since the spirit can't get ranged attacks)? I'd rather keep the extra damage than the extra attack, personally, but I want to have a rider on the extra damage of some kind, since Psychopomp gets "extra damage" and "extra bonus damage to undead". Maybe extra damage and spirit can hurl javelins with a 20/60 range increment (no extra attack)?



Improved Mark of the Elements
You can use it a number of times equal to your wisdom modifier and you regain all uses on a short or long rest? That is a little too much, and odds are that you will be having it up once at least every fight this way. Honestly, it's probably best to make it so that you regain all uses on a long rest but only one use on a short rest. If you don’t then it is going to be spammed beyond all belief.
They are very wisdom focused so that would be 6 by this point. I'll reduce it to "one extra use" (total two), instead of "wisdom mod extra uses".


Ascendance
All of these options are pretty good, but I am a little confused as to what the point of the thunder one is. How exactly are you so loud that you are knocking enemies prone? And why exactly do they gain resistance to all damage? It is lacklustre and seems to lack the desire flavor. Why don’t you make it so that every creature within 10 ft. of the spirit when it attacks is deafened and while deafened in this way they have disadvantage on attack rolls but an attack roll targeted against them has advantage (like blinded). That seems pretty cool to me. It’s a minor comment really but I would change it to something a little better.
I was really struggling to come up with a feature for Thunder Ascendance that wasn't like any of the other options and also was good to have. I ended up using thunderwave as justification for thunder damage throwing people around. Applying a condition in an area could work. I don't even know what I was thinking with resist all. I must have put it in as an afterthought out of some desire to make at least one of them defensively oriented or because prone seemed too weak.


Verdict
Over-all this is a very well designed class with a strong theme and good mechanics to match it. You did a great job detailing it out and it has very few errors in it. But I can’t help but be concerned with its power level. It doesn’t have any one feature that is highly overpowered, but there are several which are slightly more powerful than they should be, which tends to add up. If I was a DM I would allow a player to use this class, but I also would be incredibly nervous and hesitant to do so. Maybe you should take a look over what you did and ask yourself “did I make this feature stronger than it needs to be?”. This may be just me being overly paranoid though, because I am already playing a scene out in my head of a fight between a Bravery Spiritcaller and an a War Cleric and I am seeing that cleric last for quite some time before falling.
When I was making the class, my mechanical goal was a damage class that attacks and applies damage indirectly. From that sprang the spirit as a physical companion (originally the spirit was going to be the archetype, like a warlock patron but inside you), so that the spiritcaller had a way to feel like the damage was theirs, and then spirit surge as their iconic feature (giving them a version of divine smite that could be shared, at the extra cost of their bonus action). I may have allowed spirit surge to stack too high given they get passive damage increases; removing improved spirit surge will help but I might also have to decrease spirit points' high availability right now by increasing the costs of other spirit point features (other than Astral Traveler, nothing costs more than 4 right now). means they have to make a choice of whether to use their utility or their damage (like divine smite needing spell slots). I'll do a pass to normalize spirit point spenders' damage, my initial draft estimated costs but didn't compare them against effects similar to what they produce. The only one I'm confident I want to keep is the 1 point per 1 die on spirit surge, and I probably need to make their special features more expensive to compensate.

Thanks for the critique! It might take a couple days before these updates actually make their way to my posted links, but I wanted to respond while I was thinking about it.



The only thing I immediately notice about spiritcaller that hasn't really been already said is that you refer to "The spiritcaller" a lot when the 5e standard is to use "You".
Thanks for pointing that out, I'm hopeless at proofreading my own stuff. I'll do a pass to correct this. It used to be even worse. I'd go from "the spiritcaller" to "they" to "your", then back to "they". My thoughts don't always stay in one place when I'm trying to get class features down before forgetting what I wanted them to do. I'm going to take this comment as being that you both agreed with Requilac's concerns and had no additional concerns beyond that, which I choose to interpret as a good sign!

[WarrentheHero]

Since we're all here, if like to propose a few ideas for the next Contest.
-The Contest will be one-month long. Contestants will have 3 weeks (21 days), to design and edit their class. After this period, all entries are considered final a d cannot be changed for the week-long voting period that follows.
-I prefer modular organization, so this might just be me, but I'd prefer if all classes are made in their own post, with the Contest in the title and a link back to the main Contest thread. Submissions on the main contest thread are links to their full-theead counterparts. This has a few benefits. For one, it increases visibility of each class to be critiqued by a wider audience. Some people just don't bother with contests and have o interest looking over a contest thread for gems. Secondly, it increases visibility of the contest itself. People will see a whole bunch of 5e Contest threads and think "man tbis is really popular. Let's see what it's about!" Third, it makes critiques much much easier, as all critiques to a class are on that class's thread. Each class is pretty much contained in their own thread. If the Contests get so big that we end up flooding the Homebrew page, we might have to reconsider.
-All Competitors must critique at least one other class.

These are my immediate thoughts, but open for discussion, of course.

As for the next contest's Theme, I have a few ideas:
Dragons Classes that emulate, study, or derive power from dragons.
Elemental Classes that manipulate or incorporate the four classical elements or the 5 d&d chromatic elements (acid, cold, fire, lightning, poison).
Terror Spooky classes with the ability to instill fear. Not necessarily all about the Frightened condition; just things that are scary or play off of common phobias (like a Spider-mancer or something for archachnophobia).
Faces Classes that specialize in social encounters. The difficulty here is for these classes to have something to do in combat. I'm looking at Bards and Warlocks as examples of Face Classes
Constitution Most classes don't use Constitution except for HP. These classes would have a greater focus on what is otherwise the second-least-used ability score.

[JNAProductions]

New ability on the Daredevil, I see.

Let's compare it against an average (according to the DMG) CR 6 monster, with AC 15, 150 HP, a +6 attack bonus, and 40 DPR (if all attacks hit-we'll assume two attacks for 20 damage each), relative to a Fighter.

Daredevil has had one ASI, putting him at Dex 18, presumably.
Fighter has had two ASIs, putting him at Dex 20 (we're modeling this Fighter as a subclassless Archer, for the purposes of this fight).
We'll assume the monster works at range, meaning it's just a shoot-out.

Daredevil has three tricks-let's take Always Alert, Deflecting Fortune, and Signature Gear. This gives us a single shortbow shot before the encounter starts properly, the ability to maybe reflect damage, and a +1 to Attack or AC. I'll check for both. They also have 51 HP and AC 16 (17 if Signature Gear is applied to Studded Leather), a +7 (+8 with Signature Gear) to-hit for 1d6+4 damage, and deal triple dice on a crit rather than double, as well as critting on a 19-20. Also Uncanny Dodge, to halve damage from the first hit each round.
The Fighter has the Archery Fighting Style and a longbow. He has +10 to hit for 1d8+5 damage and shoots twice a round. AC 17, 58 HP, and Second Wind for 1d10+6 HP restored one turn as a bonus action. Also Action Surge, but we'll only use ONE of those-probably Action Surge-since the Daredevil is NOT expending any resources.

We will assume the Monster has Alert or some equivalent, giving him first turn.

Daredevil A (17 AC, +7 to-hit) hits on an 8, for a 55% chance of a hit (7.5 damage) and a 10% chance of a crit (14.5 damage). Each shot from the monster hits on an 11, for a 45% chance of hitting for 10 damage on the first hit, 20 damage on the second, and a 5% chance of critting for, let's say... 35 (17 on the first) damage. Each miss does 20 damage to the monster on a 17+, for a 20% chance.
Daredevil B (16 AC, +8 to-hit) hits on a 7, for 60% chance of a hit and a 10% chance of a crit. Each shot from the monster hits on a 10, for a 50% chance of hitting and a 5% chance of critting. Each miss has the same 20% chance of doing 20 damage to the monster.
Fighter (17 AC, +10 to-hit) hits on a 5, for a 75% chance of a hit (9.5 damage) and a 5% chance of a crit (14 damage). Each shot from the monster hits on an 11, for a 45% chance of hitting for 20 damage, and a 5% chance of critting for 35.

Daredevil A does 4.125+1.45 damage on each shot, for 5.575 damage per turn. The monster has a... Damn, this is annoying. 4.5+.85=5.35 damage on the first hit, on average. The second hit does 9+1.75=10.75 damage on average. So, in one turn with two attacks, it does, on average... Four states, hit hit, hit miss, miss hit, miss miss... ((5.35+10.75)+5.35+5.35+0)/4=6.7 damage on average. It also has a 20% chance per miss to take 20 damage itself, so that is 4 damage on average per miss, or (0+4+4+(4+4))/4=4 damage on average per turn to itself from misses.
Damage per turn to Daredevil A is 6.7.
Damage per turn to Monster is 9.575, plus 5.575 for the first turn.

Daredevil B does 4.5+1.45 damage on each shot, for 5.95 damage per turn. The monster has 5+.85=5.85 on the first, 10+1.75=11.75 damage on the second. So, in one turn with two attacks, it does, on average... Crap, this is harder because it's no longer a 50% binary chance. Okay, .55 chance of hitting with the first attack. So that is .45*.45 chance of miss miss, .45*.55 chance of miss hit, .55*.45 chance of hit miss, and .55*.55 chance of hit hit. Miss miss does 0 damage to Daredevil B and 8 to Monster, miss hit or hit miss does 5.85 to Daredevil B and 4 to Monster, and hit hit does 17.6 to Daredevil B, none to Monster. For .2025 miss miss, .2475 of miss hit or hit miss, and .3025 of hit hit. Adds to 1, probability achieved. That is... 1.62+2*(.88)=3.6 damage to itself a turn, and 2*(1.4479)+5.324=8.2198 damage to Daredevil B each turn.
Damage per turn to Daredevil B is 8.2198.
Damage per turn to Monster is 9.55, plus 5.95 for the first turn.

Fighter SW does 7.125+.7 damage on each shot, for 7.825 damage per shot, or 15.65 a turn. The monster does 9+1.75=10.75 damage a shot, for 21.5 damage a turn.
Damage per turn to Fighter SW is 21.5, with a one-time 11.5 heal.
Damage per turn to Monster is 15.65.

Fighter AS does 15.65 a turn. The monster does 21.5 a turn.
Damage per turn to Fighter AS is 21.5 a turn.
Damage per turn to Monster is 15.65, with a one-time doubling.

So, under these assumptions...

Daredevil A does 5.575 to the monster, then takes 6.7 and deals 9.575 more. Monster is at 134.85, Daredevil is at 44.3.

Daredevil B does 5.95 to the monster, then takes 8.2 and does 9.55 more. Monster is at 134.5, Daredevil is at 42.8.

Monster does 21.5 points of damage to Fighter SW, 11.5 of which is healed. Fighter then does 15.65 damage to Monster. Monster is at 134.35, Fighter is at 48 HP.

Monster does 21.5 points of damage to Fighter AS. Fighter then does 15.65 damage to Monster, twice. Monster is at 118.7, Fighter is at 36.5.

Each round, Daredevil A first takes 6.7, then deals 9.575. This means that he will last (44.3/6.7=6.612) seven turns, dealing 67.025 more points of damage. The Monster ends at 67.825 HP, the Daredevil is dead.

Each round, Daredevil B first takes 8.2 damage, then deals 9.55. This means he will last (42.8/8.2=5.22) six turns, dealing 57.3 more points of damage. The monster ends at 77.2 HP, the Daredevil is dead.

Each round, Fighter SW first takes 21.5 damage, then deals 15.65. This means he will last (48/21.5=2.233) three turns, dealing 46.95 more points of damage. The monster ends at 87.4 HP, the Fighter is dead.

Each round, Fighter AS first takes 21.5 damage, then deals 15.65. This means he will last (36.5/21.5=1.698) two turns, dealing 31.3 more points of damage. The monster ends at 87.4 HP, the Fighter is dead.

If AS and SW are combined, the Monster takes an addition 15.65 damage, putting it at 71.75 HP. Fighter still dies.

Conclusion: Against a single monster with a low number of attacks, the Daredevil actually does pretty well, with those tricks. The damage reflection is key, and only gets better as enemies do more damage and your proficiency improves.

I don't like relying on crits and the enemy missing for extra damage, but mathematically... Well, against solos, it does okay. Now, against a MOB, that might change. Damage reflection will be more common and potent, but Uncanny Dodge, less so.

[MoleMage]

Since we're all here, if like to propose a few ideas for the next Contest.
-The Contest will be one-month long. Contestants will have 3 weeks (21 days), to design and edit their class. After this period, all entries are considered final a d cannot be changed for the week-long voting period that follows.
-I prefer modular organization, so this might just be me, but I'd prefer if all classes are made in their own post, with the Contest in the title and a link back to the main Contest thread. Submissions on the main contest thread are links to their full-theead counterparts. This has a few benefits. For one, it increases visibility of each class to be critiqued by a wider audience. Some people just don't bother with contests and have o interest looking over a contest thread for gems. Secondly, it increases visibility of the contest itself. People will see a whole bunch of 5e Contest threads and think "man tbis is really popular. Let's see what it's about!" Third, it makes critiques much much easier, as all critiques to a class are on that class's thread. Each class is pretty much contained in their own thread. If the Contests get so big that we end up flooding the Homebrew page, we might have to reconsider.
-All Competitors must critique at least one other class.

These are my immediate thoughts, but open for discussion, of course.

As for the next contest's Theme, I have a few ideas:
Dragons Classes that emulate, study, or derive power from dragons.
Elemental Classes that manipulate or incorporate the four classical elements or the 5 d&d chromatic elements (acid, cold, fire, lightning, poison).
Terror Spooky classes with the ability to instill fear. Not necessarily all about the Frightened condition; just things that are scary or play off of common phobias (like a Spider-mancer or something for archachnophobia).
Faces Classes that specialize in social encounters. The difficulty here is for these classes to have something to do in combat. I'm looking at Bards and Warlocks as examples of Face Classes
Constitution Most classes don't use Constitution except for HP. These classes would have a greater focus on what is otherwise the second-least-used ability score.

I like Terror and Elemental (chromatic elements), and I want to like Constitution as long as we're all careful about it.
I'd like to add Blast from the Past: choose a previous edition or other game system and translate one of its character classes into 5e.

[Lanth Sor]

Please review
THE PRIMAL GOURMAND (http://homebrewery.naturalcrit.com/share/r10iuULhz) - Eating your way to the top of the food chain

Need help with balance.

[Requilac]

The wording is used to indicate the iconic weapon of the class. Barbarian does the same thing with a) a greataxe or b) any martial melee weapon, and a number of classes offer a)a light crossbow and 20 bolts or b) any simple weapon (though I guess that pairing includes ammo in one half and not in the other).

Fair enough, I didn't notice that.




You're right. I was balancing it against Sun Soul Monk, which I thought got the radiant sphere at 6 but actually gets it at 11. I'll move this feature to Improved Spirit Surge's slot at level 14 (and maybe remove Improved Spirit Surge), and replace it with some other attack upgrade for the spirit (not increased damage since that's included in 2/3 archetypes or extra attack since that benefits Psychopomp and Bravery too much and Elements less by comparison, but maybe a ranged attack option or attacks counting as magical?).

Ranged attack option seems fair to me. Or perhaps you could give the spirit guardian an attack which deals the same damage as the normal attack but requires the target to make a dexterity saving throw instead of using your attack bonus.



The damage effect was modeled after the magic weapon spell with a modified duration. The AC doesn't have a direct comparison, but Shield of Faith is a 1st level spell that's +2 AC with no rider that it must be non-magical. The higher cost wouldn't be too brutal since spirit points are short rest, I will implement that. Should I also include a specification that Imbued Spirit doesn't stack with magic that gives an increase to armor class? I can see a problem with stacking from Shield of Faith and Imbued Spirit. It already doesn't stack with existing magical weapons or armor (like with magic weapon). For comparison, magic weapon becomes available to full casters at 3, allows for a +2 at 7, and allows for a +3 at 11. Should I make this feature require concentration as though concentrating as a spell (maybe I can change the guiding spirit bonus to "doesn't require concentration" instead of "get both bonuses" if I do)?

If you increase the point cost and put a clause in which states that it doesn't stack with spells or features that increase AC such as shield of faith and haste it should work out fine.



That was how the feature is supposed to work; the spirit already regains all hit points on a long rest per the base feature. I'll fix the wording here to indicate both using an "in addition to". For balance, even after I drop the HP from 5/level to 4/level, I see how this is too much (especially with guardian spirit 4 levels later. What if I made it something like this: "in addition to healing normally when you complete a long rest, your spirit recovers hit points up to half its maximum value when you complete a short rest". I didn't want to give the spirit its own hit dice because of bookkeeping concerns, but if healing to half seems off-balance I could make it so that when the spiritcaller spends hit dice to heal during a short rest, it also heals its spirit by an equal amount.

Umm MoleMage, you never mention that the spirit guide regains hit points on a long rest. The base feature says you can remanifest it after completeing a long rest if it is already dead, but it says nothing about it healing over a long rest. I guess you could always kill the spirit ally during a long rest and remanifest it afterwards but that seems like a weird and unnecessarily cruel way to do it.

I like the idea of when the spirit caller is rolling hit dice the spirit ally regains the same amount that the spirit caller does better than the version where it regains half its hit point maximum. The former is more thematically appropriate and is not as powerful.



Mostly for redundancy's sake. The intended effect was that undead affected by spirit burst take the damage they would take from an attack, but since it required a save instead of an attack roll, the strict reading would be that the spirit does its necrotic damage always when using spirit burst instead of its radiant + extra die when undead were affected.

This isn't very serious, but I would recommend rewording that to make your intention more clear.



Not true, spirit surge is a bonus action to trigger, and most of their normal damage budget is tied up in that feature (whether they give it to someone else or to their spirit). Concerted Attack is an alternative for when they are out of spirit points or wish to conserve them. If I made it require them to occupy the same space as in Spiritual Shield would that bring it closer to in line (as they'd have to engage in melee since the spirit can't get ranged attacks)? I'd rather keep the extra damage than the extra attack, personally, but I want to have a rider on the extra damage of some kind, since Psychopomp gets "extra damage" and "extra bonus damage to undead". Maybe extra damage and spirit can hurl javelins with a 20/60 range increment (no extra attack)?

The javelin approach seems interesting and the more thematically appropriate of them, but having it only work while spiritual shield is active should keep it line also.



They are very wisdom focused so that would be 6 by this point. I'll reduce it to "one extra use" (total two), instead of "wisdom mod extra uses".

That makes so much more sense and seems like a much more elegant approach.



When I was making the class, my mechanical goal was a damage class that attacks and applies damage indirectly. From that sprang the spirit as a physical companion (originally the spirit was going to be the archetype, like a warlock patron but inside you), so that the spiritcaller had a way to feel like the damage was theirs, and then spirit surge as their iconic feature (giving them a version of divine smite that could be shared, at the extra cost of their bonus action). I may have allowed spirit surge to stack too high given they get passive damage increases; removing improved spirit surge will help but I might also have to decrease spirit points' high availability right now by increasing the costs of other spirit point features (other than Astral Traveler, nothing costs more than 4 right now). means they have to make a choice of whether to use their utility or their damage (like divine smite needing spell slots). I'll do a pass to normalize spirit point spenders' damage, my initial draft estimated costs but didn't compare them against effects similar to what they produce. The only one I'm confident I want to keep is the 1 point per 1 die on spirit surge, and I probably need to make their special features more expensive to compensate.

This is exactly the route that I would take. Hopefully I have fulfilled what you wanted me to do, correct? I know I didn't nearly go as much into detail about design philosophy for your class as you did for mine, but I still hope I helped nontheless.


Since we're all here, if like to propose a few ideas for the next Contest.
-The Contest will be one-month long. Contestants will have 3 weeks (21 days), to design and edit their class. After this period, all entries are considered final a d cannot be changed for the week-long voting period that follows.
-I prefer modular organization, so this might just be me, but I'd prefer if all classes are made in their own post, with the Contest in the title and a link back to the main Contest thread. Submissions on the main contest thread are links to their full-theead counterparts. This has a few benefits. For one, it increases visibility of each class to be critiqued by a wider audience. Some people just don't bother with contests and have o interest looking over a contest thread for gems. Secondly, it increases visibility of the contest itself. People will see a whole bunch of 5e Contest threads and think "man tbis is really popular. Let's see what it's about!" Third, it makes critiques much much easier, as all critiques to a class are on that class's thread. Each class is pretty much contained in their own thread. If the Contests get so big that we end up flooding the Homebrew page, we might have to reconsider.
-All Competitors must critique at least one other class.

These are my immediate thoughts, but open for discussion, of course.

As for the next contest's Theme, I have a few ideas:
Dragons Classes that emulate, study, or derive power from dragons.
Elemental Classes that manipulate or incorporate the four classical elements or the 5 d&d chromatic elements (acid, cold, fire, lightning, poison).
Terror Spooky classes with the ability to instill fear. Not necessarily all about the Frightened condition; just things that are scary or play off of common phobias (like a Spider-mancer or something for archachnophobia).
Faces Classes that specialize in social encounters. The difficulty here is for these classes to have something to do in combat. I'm looking at Bards and Warlocks as examples of Face Classes
Constitution Most classes don't use Constitution except for HP. These classes would have a greater focus on what is otherwise the second-least-used ability score.

I am fine with implementing all of those rules. The first rule is almost identical to the existing mechanic, the last one is an interesting way to get people to focus on it, and the second one was something I probably should have had to begin with.

As for the theme, keep in mind that we also thought up a couple different themes in the Interest Check Thread. The other three themes that were brought up where classes that represent monsters, pacts and incarnum users. Here is how I would order them.

Here is how I would order the ones you had given.

1st, terror: This seems loose enough to advertise all different sorts of classes, and the D&D community tends to eat up horror and edgy characters so this will certainly catch people's eye
2nd, dragons: only because I don't have a major objection to it like I do the others.
3rd, elements: With the introduction of the schools of magic and class power sources (divine, arcane, primal), elements really just are not the best way of organizing phenomenen in the D&D universe.
4th, faces: social interaction does not really involve many checks and is inherently based on role-playing to begin with, and if you ask me, it should remain that way. This goal is pretty much covered with expertise and clever role playing as is, no need to make a class for it.
5th, blast from the past: my newbie eyes hurt as I recognize the fact that the only other RPG I have played is a couple of sessions of CoC, whose classes consist of a bunch of skill proficiences, so I would be out of luck with this one.
6th, constitution: everybody already uses constitution enough as is, no need to make it even more valuable for a player.

[MoleMage]

Alright, I should have time tomorrow to implement all changes and do a proofreading pass, but I wanted to get this thought out now as I was reading:

When you mentioned power sources, I had another idea but no clever name for it. What about classes that access a power source in unintuitive ways? A divine spellcaster who instead of receiving his power from the gods, stole it from their halls. A primal power user who uses the impeccable precision of clockwork to manipulate natural forces. A martial master who honed precognitive abilities at the expense of training in the use of weapons. Something like that could be fun and it's open-ended enough that people will come up with a pretty good variety.


This is exactly the route that I would take. Hopefully I have fulfilled what you wanted me to do, correct? I know I didn't nearly go as much into detail about design philosophy for your class as you did for mine, but I still hope I helped nontheless.
This was great! Even if you don't set out to talk about design philosophy, it bleeds through when you do an inspection of features (for example, you pointed out how all of my power adds up, which was a flaw in my design philosophy since I was ladling all of my class's power into one feature).


EDIT: I think I have finished v2 of the Spiritcaller. In addition to an overall wording pass to change third person to second person, the following features have been added or changed:

Added the "What is a Spirit" sidebar specifying what counts as a spirit and mentioning that "your spirit" refers to the spirit gained by guiding spirit (in case someone acquires a spirit through other means or tries to apply class features to their own soul or something).
Fixed the HP of guiding spirit and the wording of its ability to sense nearby spirits. Now only reveals presence, not location. Removed caveat that mortal magic could hide spirits. Added healing on completing a long rest and more details on the requirements to remanifest the spirit.
Ghostwise sight now has a limited number of uses per long rest, in line with Paladin's Divine sense. The information you receive now includes compulsions affecting the spirit (including Unfinished Business and the like). Removed the caveat that mortal magic could hide spirits.
Spirit burst moved to 14th level. Wording improved to indicate interactions with Spirit Surge.
Spirit burst replaced with a new feature similar to turn undead for spirits, but with more options and shorter duration.
Imbued Spirit costs adjusted, using Monk Ki point spell duplication as a reference. Added non-stacking clause for AC. (cost is now 3/5/7 instead of 2/4/6)
Eternal Spirit now allows your spirit to share your short rest healing and allows you to remanifest it with 1 HP during a short rest.
Spirit Journey's third option (incorporeal movement) cost increased. There's not a solid analogue for a 1 round duration incorporeal movement, but it seemed strictly better than the first option for spirit journey.
Guardian Spirit now costs 3 instead of 2 points to trigger.
Ley Lines unchanged.
Astral Traveler cost increased from 8 to 10. Now must refresh on a long rest before it can be used again (as it duplicates a 9th level spell and is not self-only like the monk feature it is most similar to).
Aspect of the Psychopomp's Guiding Spirit and Reaping Spirit now have (hopefully) clearer wording for the bonus damage to undead. Spirit Surge explicitly does not stack with the spirit's extra damage.
Added Not Your Time, as Psychopomps did not have a 1st level combat feature, while Bravery and Elements did (this is an old change but I'm not sure whether it was before or after reading).
Paths of the Other Side now allows a save against hit point reduction even if one is not normally allowed, in addition to its previous effects.
Ghostflesh cost increased from 3 to 5.
Cut the Thread cost increased from 5 to 8. It now is once per long rest.
Fixed a typo in Aspect of Bravery's Guiding Spirit.
Spectral Volley damage decreased from 5d6 to 3d6. It now creates difficult terrain in its area for one round.
Concerted Attack replaced with Olympian Spirit, allowing the guiding spirit to make a ranged attack with a range of 20/60. Damage increase was kept as-is.
Phalanx cost increased to 5 spirit points from 4. Now uses the more 5e-friendly wording of "targets" instead of "allies". Armor class of shieldmen specified.
Avatar of Bravery now adds Wisdom to Strength and Constitution saving throws in addition to its previous effects. It now specifies that it refreshes on a long rest.
Wording (hopefully) clearer on Aspect of Elements damage types.
Extra use of Mark of the Elements is now mentioned in the original feature. Reduced from Wisdom mod to 1.
Primal Speech now specifies that Aquan, Auran, Ignan, and Terran are the intended dialects of elementals. The Player's Handbook does not have that information (though elementals are mentioned as speaking those four languages).
Improved Mark of the Elements now lets you change the damage type of an active mark as a bonus action, in addition to increasing the damage.
Elemental Absorption now can be used on your spirit in addition to yourself. Cost increased from 4 to 5.
Ascendance now specifies the action to use it (bonus action) and that it refreshes on a long rest.
Ascendant thunder now deafens targets struck instead of knocking them prone. Creatures deafened by this effect must make a saving throw in order to cast spells until the end of their next turn (using their spellcasting ability). Resistance to damage removed.

[Jama7301]

Man, I should really hang out in the Homebrew forums more. I didn't realize there was a contest going on for 5e. Gonna have to keep some eyes on this.

[Requilac]

Wow Molemage the Spirit Caller is looking great now, I just have couple of minor nitpicks left.

Rebuke Spirits
For the chastised option you say that that the spirit is “Stunned for one round”. You should probably change it to “Stunned until the end of their next turn” because 5e can’t really count rounds reliably.

Imbued Spirits
Slight gramattical error here when you say “When you use this feature on your guiding spirit, it gains bonuses as though it was both weapon and armor.” I think you meant to say “as though it was wearing both weapons and armor.

Olympian Spirit
I would change the range to 30/120 like the javelin, it increases the feature’s overall usefulness without being too overpowered.

[WarrentheHero]

The Inventor has received a minor update. Two things most notably: the attack roll -based Invention now uses a d10 instead of a d8, and Autonomous Inventions were reworked slightly. If you choose to build your AI as Small rather than Medium, you save one Invention Point, it it's physical stats are reduced. In addition, they now have a base walking speed instead of being immobile, but a Clockwork Dynamo will increase their walking speed, OR give them a Fly speed OR give them a Swim speed, and subsequent Invention Points increase those speeds even further

[Requilac]

Oh my, the submissions, all the submissions... I wasn't expecting this. Would you all like it if I were to drop the deadline to the 15th and give an extra week to the voting period so we all have more time to collect our thoughts? This is going to be very hard to review all of these classes.

[MoleMage]

I can't read the Primal Gourmand on my machine. Can you post a PDF of it also?

It's been a busy week for me, but if anyone else wants feedback bullet points I should have time on Monday.

[Lanth Sor]

PDF Link (https://drive.google.com/file/d/18UbbjwPZJnwCtbIvljQTbkc2odLfhIDQ/view?usp=sharing)
I have quite a bit to do. I'm updating for spelling so please dismiss any errors, spell check wasn't working. The main idea is kinda like how primal zerg eat things for essence, or Toriko (http://toriko.wikia.com/wiki/Toriko)characters get weird powers from food. Spell slots are just magical food for their special abilities.

[Lanth Sor]

Updated post to have code in spoiler if you have homebrewerey issue and will be updating when I get home my computer didn't save to homebrewerey correctly last night so every thing is on a note pad that i changed yeah notepad++

[Jama7301]

Quick question, because I want to know if I need to rework some abilities.

The class you homebrew must be a non-casting class which doesn’t focus on making weapon attacks either

Under this guideline, is a Smiting Paladin disqualified? I'm working on a class that gains a resource, and one of the main ways of using it is to boost attack damage. Should I consider reworking the class to reduce the focus of that?

[MoleMage]

Quick question, because I want to know if I need to rework some abilities.


Under this guideline, is a Smiting Paladin disqualified? I'm working on a class that gains a resource, and one of the main ways of using it is to boost attack damage. Should I consider reworking the class to reduce the focus of that?

My spiritcaller has a variation of smite that's funded with a class resource instead of spell slots, and nobody has suggested that I have left the bounds of the contest yet. You're probably alright as long as you don't give it actual spell slot spells.

[PhoenixPhyre]

Quick question, because I want to know if I need to rework some abilities.


Under this guideline, is a Smiting Paladin disqualified? I'm working on a class that gains a resource, and one of the main ways of using it is to boost attack damage. Should I consider reworking the class to reduce the focus of that?


My spiritcaller has a variation of smite that's funded with a class resource instead of spell slots, and nobody has suggested that I have left the bounds of the contest yet. You're probably alright as long as you don't give it actual spell slot spells.

This would be my interpretation. Something like ki-points would seem fine, or superiority dice. Without this it would be hard to make a functioning class that isn't purely steady-state. As long as they don't have spell slots, spell-slot progression, or a spell list I'd consider it fine.

[Jama7301]

My spiritcaller has a variation of smite that's funded with a class resource instead of spell slots, and nobody has suggested that I have left the bounds of the contest yet. You're probably alright as long as you don't give it actual spell slot spells.


This would be my interpretation. Something like ki-points would seem fine, or superiority dice. Without this it would be hard to make a functioning class that isn't purely steady-state. As long as they don't have spell slots, spell-slot progression, or a spell list I'd consider it fine.

Cool! Thanks a lot. I'm not confident in the build, but I'm having fun making it. Looking forward to seeing the final products.

[Requilac]

Quick question, because I want to know if I need to rework some abilities.

Under this guideline, is a Smiting Paladin disqualified? I'm working on a class that gains a resource, and one of the main ways of using it is to boost attack damage. Should I consider reworking the class to reduce the focus of that?

I don't see anything wrong with it really. It's not a spell after all. And even if it was questionable as to whether it fits the theme, you couldn't actually get punished for it by me, though some may be less likely to vote for you.

[Lanth Sor]

That make me wonder if I should take my slots out I've been using them more as a balance point.

[Requilac]

Hey everybody good news, I have almost completely finished up on the Investigator. I have to make a couple of minor edits of course (mostly about grammar) and I am considering making a third archetype (doubtful), but other than that it is almost all done. You can go over and take a look. I know that some of you didn't want to say anything until the archetypes were finished, so there finished now. Thank you for everyone who helped me here or will help me in the future.

Make sure to read through the flavor descriptions before you begin. I realized that there were perhaps some misconceptions about what my class was. First off being what exactly it's identity was supposed to be. Let me make this clear; this was not a class specifically made to be a detective. It includes other professions heavily reliant on analysis too. This class can be used to represent not just Sherlock, but also people like Sun-tzu and Indiana Jones.

Here is a link to the post where I submitted the class. http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showsinglepost.php?p=23000467&postcount=4. I made some design notes you might be interested in too.

[WarrentheHero]

Some thoughts on the Trapper by @Gluteus_Maximus:

First and most importantly, the Trapper has absolutely nothing it can do in combat. I understand the focus of the class is an out-of-combat prepper but when combat breaks out as it usually does, the Trapper is left with... a Light Crossbow they can fire once per round as their best damage option. Combat is, in many campaigns, the largest of the Three Pillars D&D is based on, being Combat, Exploration, and Social Interaction. A class doesn't have to specialize in Combat, but it should be able to work in it.

I also question a couple of the basic class features such as Hit Die and Proficiencies. A d10 Hit Die is usually reserved for beefy front-line fighters such as Paladins or Fighters. The Trapper isn't really that type of class, so it breaks the unspoken cohesion most D&D classes follow. Similarly, I don't really understand why the get Shields. I also think it should be proficient in Heavy Crossbows. If it can't do much in combat, it should at least be able to use the best mechanical-esque weapon.

As for the traps themselves, I find most to be somewhat underwhelming. The thing about traps is a lot goes into them. Construction of course, but also preparation. I can't tell you how many traps I've seen players set that don't get used because the enemy just happens to walk past them. A single Bear Trap on a battlefield is a tiny amount of space. So a Trap should have a big payoff when it goes off. Players should have a feeling of Pride and Accomplishment when their traps work. It's the main focus of the class- don't shy away from their power level, especially since they're conditional.

Some traps I also think take too long to set. The Bear Trap, for example, takes three hours. No one has that time, especially for a single trap. I feel like the intent might be that some of these traps are assembled in town or somewhere and then set right before a battle, but that's not represented anywhere in the mechanics of the class. Compare to the baseline Hunting Trap in the Equipment section of the PHB. It takes an Action to set. Granted, you buy them pre-assembled, but it only takes an action to lay down.

There's also a few consistency and language problems throughout. The Trapping feature says you get one trap, but the Table says two. Things like that. I'd also say that the Tinkerer's Weapon Upgrade should have language closer to that of the Extra Attack feature and the Crossbow Expert fest. It should be something like "This Crossbow ignores the Loading property, and when you take the Attack action with it on your turn, you can make a second attack with it. This second attack does one stage of damage less." Something more in-line with the game-mechanics language. The Naturalist should have better animal companions as well. CR 1/4 is not a threat to anyone or anything by level 6. It's a fun, flavorful feature, but is mechanically useless. Don't fall for the same trap (ba-dum tss) that the Beastmaster Ranger fell into.

I would suggest that in addition to the out-of-combat traps, the class should get some trap or trapper-like features in combat. Maybe give them a small array of thematic tools usable in combat like Bolas or Smoke Grenades that still feel like trapping things, but offer some mechanical impact.

Finally, I would let Trappers either just know all of the traps on the list, or at least know the simpler ones. The Bear Trap is essentially the Hunting Trap from the PHB, which is available to everyone. Therefore the Bear Trap doesn't feel like it should take a "knowledge slot". Similarly, everyone knows how box-and-stick works, and one of your Traps is literally just flowers.

Overall, your class has a good concept, but could benefit greatly from clearer language, from increasing its combat ability, and perhaps most importantly, letting the traps shine as the centerpiece of the class; big flashy things like hidden crossbows, flying axes, shooting spikes, things like that.

[Gluteus_Maximus]

Overall, your class has a good concept, but could benefit greatly from clearer language, from increasing its combat ability, and perhaps most importantly, letting the traps shine as the centerpiece of the class; big flashy things like hidden crossbows, flying axes, shooting spikes, things like that.

I didn't know where the prerequisite of the classes in this contest begins and ends.


The class you homebrew must be a non-casting class which doesn’t focus on making weapon attacks either . This does not necessarily mean your class must be non-magical, but it cannot cast any spells. So long as you can justify that your class follows the theme in anyway it is valid. Although you cannot be punished for making a class which does not follow the theme well, it is unlikely that your work will get voted for if you do so.

The spellcasting is elaborated on in the primary rule of the contest but "doesn't focus on making weapon attacks" is a lesser-explained limit. If I can get some much-needed clarification then I'll revise. And make the traps a bit more powerful.

[Requilac]

I didn't know where the prerequisite of the classes in this contest begins and ends.



The spellcasting is elaborated on in the primary rule of the contest but "doesn't focus on making weapon attacks" is a lesser-explained limit. If I can get some much-needed clarification then I'll revise. And make the traps a bit more powerful.

I am going to stick by what I said earlier. As the exact idea of the contest was incredibly vague on purpose, i didn't think I could explain it any other way. No matter what though, you cannot be punished for having a class which represents the theme poorly. If people believe that it does not fit the theme, they will be less likely to vote for you, that is all. It is up to the voters whether or not your class qualifies.

[Jama7301]

This was a harrowing experience, but a learning one. Now that I don't need to worry about my own class, I can start to see what everyone else has done. :smallsmile:

[WarrentheHero]

I posted this in the main contests thread but I'll repost it here to be safe.

Homebrewery seems to be deteriorating in some way. Every time I log on it seems like there's a new formatting issue, so parts of my class end up unreadable. I've moved the Inventor to DM Binder because it seems to be more stable.

https://www.gmbinder.com/share/-LC7Hhc_Kpwy0ra-68i2

[Jormengand]

I posted this in the main contests thread but I'll repost it here to be safe.

Homebrewery seems to be deteriorating in some way. Every time I log on it seems like there's a new formatting issue, so parts of my class end up unreadable. I've moved the Inventor to DM Binder because it seems to be more stable.

https://www.gmbinder.com/share/-LC7Hhc_Kpwy0ra-68i2

Yup, this is actually legible now. Might give this site a whirl at some point.

EDIT: I put a link to a GMbinder page on the title of my contest post, but it's also there in forum form still.

[Jama7301]

I posted this in the main contests thread but I'll repost it here to be safe.

Homebrewery seems to be deteriorating in some way. Every time I log on it seems like there's a new formatting issue, so parts of my class end up unreadable. I've moved the Inventor to DM Binder because it seems to be more stable.

https://www.gmbinder.com/share/-LC7Hhc_Kpwy0ra-68i2

I really dig the Prosthetics for the Inventor. It's a neat idea.

[Requilac]

Yup, this is actually legible now. Might give this site a whirl at some point.

EDIT: I put a link to a GMbinder page on the title of my contest post, but it's also there in forum form still.

I personally really like Homebrewery. It takes a little bit to get used to, but its actually very easy to use. It makes the content almost identical to the content from the PHB and improves the aesthetic quality of the document greatly. I have had very few frustrations with it so far. And its free too. I would advise you using it. You could potentially even use it to format your 3.5e content. Its made for 5e, but I don't see why it can't be applied for 3.5e homebrew too.

[MoleMage]

I personally really like Homebrewery. It takes a little bit to get used to, but its actually very easy to use. It makes the content almost identical to the content from the PHB and improves the aesthetic quality of the document greatly. I have had very few frustrations with it so far. And its free too. I would advise you using it. You could potentially even use it to format your 3.5e content. Its made for 5e, but I don't see why it can't be applied for 3.5e homebrew too.

I think the problem we're running into is that homebrewery doesn't auto-detect page breaks, and different resolutions and browser zoom levels cause the manual page breaks to be a little wonky. I had to zoom out to 80% to read a lot of other peoples' homebrewery posts.

[Jormengand]

I think the problem we're running into is that homebrewery doesn't auto-detect page breaks, and different resolutions and browser zoom levels cause the manual page breaks to be a little wonky. I had to zoom out to 80% to read a lot of other peoples' homebrewery posts.

The problem I'm running into is that because Homebrewery is designed for Google's personal spy network Chrome, those of us who use Firefox don't get the page breaks at all. GMbinder seems to do exactly the same thing, only it, uhm, works. Which is neat.

[WarrentheHero]

I love @gloryblaze 's Channeledrboth in terms of thematic concept and mechanical concept. However, I'm worried that it is woefully underpowered. Each Rune is fun and provides a couple of cool abilities, but aren't near strong enough in their own. Consider with your current incarnation, that from levels 1-4, the only thing a Channeler can really do is cast one single cantrip, requiring both an action and bonus action to use.
An Arcane Runesource learns two low-level spell, but only two, and since it's an action to channel a rune, and an action to invoke them in this way, the Channeler gets either a cantrip every turn using their full turn, or a 1st-level spell every other turn.
A Divine Channeled has some niche use in its Channel Divinity, but it's armor and weapon buff is sort of useless as the best Simple Weapon for a non-shield class is the Quarterstaff, which Channelers already have, and Medium Armor is a nice improvement, especially since the Channeler has knly a d6 hit die and almost no useful defensive capabilities.
Some Runes do grant defensive power, but in order to get any offensive use, you have to expend a Rune. So a Channeler either gives up their tiny defense boost in favor of damage, or they just don't do damage but hold on to their small defense.

Again, I love the class's concepts thematically and mechanically, but unfortunately the class is far too weak in my opinion as it stands. I look at it and see a class whose main role in combat is using their full turn to cast one of 10 cantrips.

[JNAProductions]

Couple notes on Channeler.

Frightened should NOT be given at-will. That's a high level Berserker feature based on a dump stat-don't give it as a cantrip-equivalent.

I don't like Multichannel. Runes are similar to Cantrips, if slightly weaker, but two of them in one is stronger than any other cantrip, and three of them DEFINITELY are.

That being said, I definitely agree this class is underpowered, at least to start. Could use more.

[Jormengand]

After some thinking, I'm tempted to take Righteous Desperation off the daredevil. The nerf, much needed in 3.5 to prevent them wielding the insane might of a spellcaster alongside their own, isn't really necessary to carry over into 5e, where it mainly makes them impossible to heal and that's it. Thoughts?

[WarrentheHero]

Couple notes on Channeler.

Frightened should NOT be given at-will. That's a high level Berserker feature based on a dump stat-don't give it as a cantrip-equivalent.
I don't have the same issue here. It's a high- level Berserker feature, sure, but the Berserker gets different stuff too. I mean, Rogues and Bards get Expertise at different levels. Berserker get a bonus action attack at level 3 and Monks get one at level 1. Same or similar features don't have to come at the same level. It's a matter of class balance overall. Also, a Channeler has to use both their action to channel a rune and a bonus action to invoke it, so they're limited somewhat in that way.


I don't like Multichannel. Runes are similar to Cantrips, if slightly weaker, but two of them in one is stronger than any other cantrip, and three of them DEFINITELY are.

Multichannel is fine if not necessary. Given the most damage a Channeler can do is via essentially Fire Bolt + a Melf's Acid Arrow, it's not that strong. Some of the CC effects make that slightly better. And that's if they have a full Queue to bump older runes out to Invoke. Otherwise it just lets you set up your Queue faster, but still need a Bonus Action to invoke any of them.

[gloryblaze]

I love @gloryblaze 's Channeledrboth in terms of thematic concept and mechanical concept. However, I'm worried that it is woefully underpowered. Each Rune is fun and provides a couple of cool abilities, but aren't near strong enough in their own. Consider with your current incarnation, that from levels 1-4, the only thing a Channeler can really do is cast one single cantrip, requiring both an action and bonus action to use.
An Arcane Runesource learns two low-level spell, but only two, and since it's an action to channel a rune, and an action to invoke them in this way, the Channeler gets either a cantrip every turn using their full turn, or a 1st-level spell every other turn.
A Divine Channeled has some niche use in its Channel Divinity, but it's armor and weapon buff is sort of useless as the best Simple Weapon for a non-shield class is the Quarterstaff, which Channelers already have, and Medium Armor is a nice improvement, especially since the Channeler has knly a d6 hit die and almost no useful defensive capabilities.
Some Runes do grant defensive power, but in order to get any offensive use, you have to expend a Rune. So a Channeler either gives up their tiny defense boost in favor of damage, or they just don't do damage but hold on to their small defense.

Again, I love the class's concepts thematically and mechanically, but unfortunately the class is far too weak in my opinion as it stands. I look at it and see a class whose main role in combat is using their full turn to cast one of 10 cantrips.


Couple notes on Channeler.

Frightened should NOT be given at-will. That's a high level Berserker feature based on a dump stat-don't give it as a cantrip-equivalent.

I don't like Multichannel. Runes are similar to Cantrips, if slightly weaker, but two of them in one is stronger than any other cantrip, and three of them DEFINITELY are.

That being said, I definitely agree this class is underpowered, at least to start. Could use more.


I don't have the same issue here. It's a high- level Berserker feature, sure, but the Berserker gets different stuff too. I mean, Rogues and Bards get Expertise at different levels. Berserker get a bonus action attack at level 3 and Monks get one at level 1. Same or similar features don't have to come at the same level. It's a matter of class balance overall. Also, a Channeler has to use both their action to channel a rune and a bonus action to invoke it, so they're limited somewhat in that way.


Multichannel is fine if not necessary. Given the most damage a Channeler can do is via essentially Fire Bolt + a Melf's Acid Arrow, it's not that strong. Some of the CC effects make that slightly better. And that's if they have a full Queue to bump older runes out to Invoke. Otherwise it just lets you set up your Queue faster, but still need a Bonus Action to invoke any of them.

Thanks for the advice guys/gals! First time publishing my homebrew outside my own table, where balance generally falls by the wayside in favor of flavor. I updated the pdf (http://homebrewery.naturalcrit.com/share/BJ-jBEBAG) to make the Channeler a little bit more powerful.

Main changes:
+Divine Channeler bonus proficiencies expanded
+Added "Runic Implement" feature at 3rd level
+Rune of the Mind does damage

-Rune of the Mind cannot impose the frightened condition until 11th level

[Requilac]

Just a reminder to everyone that the voting period begins in a week and you can make no more changes to your class after that point. If you have any changes to make, do so quickly before it's too late. Due to the raw amount of submissions too I would advise that voters take the time to start reviewing the class before the voting period begins. Please remember that for you to win the competition, you must vote.

[Mourne]

Where has the time gone? I had wished to be able to participate more but...real life. That being said (and noting that I'm more here for feedback than victory), would anyone be willing to exchange reviews?

[Ninja_Prawn]

Where has the time gone? I had wished to be able to participate more but...real life. That being said (and noting that I'm more here for feedback than victory), would anyone be willing to exchange reviews?

I'll take a look, since I've had no feedback on my Insurgent either...

"1d8 per daredevil level." :smalltongue:

So, a note on the theme. It says in the intro that seekers hunt and protect against 'the supernatural' and that "supernatural includes those who cast spells or use magic". But... a lot of the abilities here look magical. All three of the first-level ones certainly seem to be magical to me. It struck me as jarring.

Baleful Ward is an interesting idea. The implementation is quite complicated though, with the way the dice pool depletes over time, so the damage isn't consistent. Given that this is the core combat feature of the class, I'd be inclined to flatten out the damage and just give it x uses/short rest. Also I assume targets aren't damaged if you move into range of them. That's what the RAW says and it makes sense mechanically, but it feels kind of awkward fluff-wise.

It's hard to say whether it's balanced. On the upside, it's guaranteed damage without attack rolls or saving throws, and it can hit multiple creatures in the same round. On the downside, you're not necessarily in control of inflicting it and most enemies are immune by virtue of their creature type. On that, perhaps it would be better to have the aura just be generically damaging, then build a subclass focussed around fighting planar creatures.

Guarding Ritual, on the other hand, seems rather too powerful. Given that this class has light and medium armour proficiencies and no reason not to pump Dex, passive AC bonuses like this seem to fly in the face of bounded accuracy. Especially when they get so big at higher levels. The answer here, I think, is to take away the armour proficiencies and make the class more reliant on its magical defenses. Even then, though, it makes the class an insanely tempting multiclass dip, which is generally something to avoid.

Lesser Sigil seems fine. There's a lot of words there for very little mechanical effect, but I'm assuming later features will build on this one. It's not clear from the text: does covering the sigil with clothing stop you from being able to track it?

Declared Anathema is fine. Similar in power to first level spells, and I think the restriction on who it can target is a fair trade-off for it being at-will.

I'm not sold on these being Charisma saves, by the way. They look like Wisdom to me.

Antediluvian Symbols. Well, that's one way to write a non-caster! But no, these are mostly good. The amount of uses/long rest looks fine to me. Some notes: Symbol of Unveiling says "during combat", which strikes me as a poorly defined term. And it doesn't have a duration. I'd have made Symbol of Eternity last 1 minute as well, since "the current encounter" is kind of wishy-washy.

Protective Ward looks nice.

Man, the "Intelligence greater than two, and at least as many Hit Dice as your Seeker Bonus" clause in Purgatorial Rite makes me cringe. I think, if bags of rats are a problem, it might be time to restructure the ability.

1d8/2 per action isn't much healing at 9th level, either.

Maybe look again at the first two sentences of Rebuke Anathema... on the ability itself, again it feels over-complicated, with different targets suffering different effects at different levels. Very AD&D-style. And it says "any creature that is an anathema", but the Declared Anathema ability says "you may only have a single declaration active at any time". Seems contradictory - or could be leftover remnants of a design change.

What's a "Damage Ward die"?

The rest seems fine. Except the bit where you can cast power word: kill five times per long rest (even if it costs you 10 hit dice to do it). I'd put a hard cap of 1/long rest on the whole True Speech ability.

I've only skimmed the subclasses, but they look alright. This is a long class; it's tough to digest all in one go.

[Jormengand]

"1d8 per daredevil level." :smalltongue:

*Sigh* everyone wants to be me... :smalltongue:

[Ninja_Prawn]

*Sigh* everyone wants to be me... :smalltongue:

Take it as a compliment - they're just jealous of your formatting!

[Requilac]

Actually Ninja Prawn, I almost forget, I did review your class and made a few notes about it. They are not very specific but they could be of use to you.

Let me start of by saying that my opinions may be biased because the first thing I saw when I opened up the document was a painting of the Kremlin, which piqued the inner history nerd in me and may have arbitrarily influenced the way I felt.

your class actually has some great mechanics to it. I think all the features are well written and give them some good power without being overpowered. Over-all the insurgent is one of the best homebrew classes I have ever seen. There's just one problem... they use weapon attacks way too much. The idea of this competition was to create non-casting, non-martial class and yours is pretty weapon based. While an insurgent may be fairly interesting in combat, all I can imagine them doing every turn is making a weapon attack after weapon attack. I can't help but feel it is going against the spirit of the competition a little if your class is attacking with weapons almost every turn.

[Jama7301]

*Sigh* everyone wants to be me... :smalltongue:

You took an evocative name that I wanted to use for part of my class! :smallannoyed:

Still used it anyways in passing. :smallbiggrin:

So I guess your statement holds true, technically, I guess.

[Ninja_Prawn]

painting of the Kremlin... may have arbitrarily influenced the way I felt.

That's kind of the idea...!


There's just one problem... they use weapon attacks way too much.

Thank you for the comments! This complaint is fair, though my counter-argument is that the Insurgent is no more weapon-dependent than the SRD Rogue, and doesn't even get any martial weapon proficiencies in the base class. Ultimately, I'm happy for the voting public to decide whether I've strayed too far from the theme; much like Mourne I'm more interested in constructive feedback than winning the contest.

[Requilac]

That's kind of the idea...!

Wow, did anyone else get major deja-vu just there?



Thank you for the comments! This complaint is fair, though my counter-argument is that the Insurgent is no more weapon-dependent than the SRD Rogue, and doesn't even get any martial weapon proficiencies in the base class. Ultimately, I'm happy for the voting public to decide whether I've strayed too far from the theme; much like Mourne I'm more interested in constructive feedback than winning the contest.

I suppose it isn't any more based on weapons than the rogue, and I am not saying it doesn't reinforce the theme at all, I am just saying that perhaps it might not support the theme as strongly as the other classes and thusly you might be less likely to get voted on.

To be completely honest, I think most of us here are more interested in hearing feedback and seeing what everyone else has created than winning. It's not like we get anything from winning anyhow. Although I understand some people are competitive, the environment of this chat thread seems to foster a sort of good sportsmanship so most of those feelings of aggressiveness would hopefully be suppressed.

[Jama7301]

To be completely honest, I think most of us here are more interested in hearing feedback and seeing what everyone else has created than winning. It's not like we get anything from winning anyhow. Although I understand some people are competitive, the environment of this chat thread seems to foster a sort of good sportsmanship so most of those feelings of aggressiveness would hopefully be suppressed.

I'm a big big fan of good natured competition, but I can also see that I have a long way to being competitive. I want to push myself to do these contests, finish last a bunch, and eventually get better at this. Taking the plunge in this contest was the daunting first step, but I'm looking forward to seeing how these play out.

[JNAProductions]

No! I must win! At all costs! :P

Yeah, while I'm hoping to place highly, if I don't... Eh, whatever. There are some solid other contenders. The only time I'd complain is if stuff that was just plain BAD placed above mine, but I don't think that'll be an issue, given the quality of the content here.

[PhoenixPhyre]

To be completely honest, I think most of us here are more interested in hearing feedback and seeing what everyone else has created than winning. It's not like we get anything from winning anyhow. Although I understand some people are competitive, the environment of this chat thread seems to foster a sort of good sportsmanship so most of those feelings of aggressiveness would hopefully be suppressed.

Yeah. I'd like to get more feedback myself, which means I'll have to do more reviews of other work :smallsmile:

I've used the same style of feature in a couple other home-brews that never got any commentary before, so anything I learn from this will transfer to those.

[Mourne]

Insurgent Review

Your creative writing talents really shine! Great job! Do you take commission work as someone’s classes (/cough mine) could really use this level of polish. :smallwink:

The class concept is well stated and the features are well defined through levels 1 to 5. There are ribbons in place to support social interaction though not much for exploration. There’s a power increase at 11th though the traditional bump at 17th is not there… I’ll address this specifically with that feature.

First, some general notes. I’m curious as to the decision behind having the d10 HD? Is this intended as a front line combatant? d8 would “feel” more appropriate but may not provide enough fuel for the Bleed for the Cause feature and would make Underdog perhaps a too dangerous at lower levels?

Multi-classing for Homebrews can be completely problematic (as can feat interactions, but as they are an optional rule, I don’t obsess here). With the Insurgent, a Rogue dip (or Bard to 3rd level I suppose) for grapple/shove shenanigans would be very powerful. In this case, the one level dip in Rogue gets you Expertise (taking either Athletics or Acrobatics). Coupled with Subversive Action (grapple/shove as a bonus) and Bleed for the Cause, an Insurgent at higher levels could have a +21 (+12 from prof/expertise +5 Bleed +4 assumed 18 STR or DEX) to their contested check, almost guaranteeing permanent-grapple or prone of any M or L opponent (boss) without using an action. Maybe this is intended

Adding a level of Insurgent to Barbarian (in particular) or Fighter is very tempting…Underdog has a lot of synergy. Nothing probably too OP, just something to note.

In the end, there’s a lot of potential in the use of disadvantage and HP (damage) as a power source for features. The Insurgent in its current state plays it a little safe I feel… certainly good for not being initially too OP or “out there” but it ends up feeling very vanilla (almost – and saying this makes me want to flog myself – like it’s an archetype of Fighter or Rogue).

I’ll recreate each core class feature for clarity followed by my comments.


Guerrilla Tactics.
You thrive when the odds are stacked most heavily against you. Once per turn, you can deploy a special technique against one creature you hit with an attack if you have disadvantage on the attack roll. Choose one of the following:


The target has disadvantage on attack rolls until the start of its next turn.
The target's base speed is halved until the end of its next turn.
The target cannot take reactions until the start of its next turn.

You don’t need disadvantage on the attack roll if there are no allies or friendly creatures within 30 feet of you and you don’t have advantage on the attack roll.

Giving disadvantage until the “start of its next turn” as a special technique can be moot if the creature has already attacked during the round. Perhaps change the wording of this bullet to “the target has disadvantage on its next attack roll”?

In a general sense, this makes dropping prone a viable tactic for the Insurgent as this would give disadvantage on attacks as well as providing a defensive buff against reach and ranged attacks (attacks beyond 5 feet). Is this intended or should this feature maybe have a caveat of “when you hit with a melee attack”?

I could see an Insurgent’s turn being always as follows: 1) drop prone 2) make ranged attack and apply special technique 3) stand up and use remaining movement.

Creative use of disadvantage. I think there’s a lot of potential here!


Underdog
Whenever your current HP is less than half of your maximum hit points, you can deal 1d8 additional damage to a target that you hit with a weapon attack. Alternatively, you can deal this additional damage against any creature that has attacked or damaged you since the end of your last turn, even if you have more than half of your maximum hit points. You can only use this ability once per turn.

The amount of the extra damage increases as you gain levels in this class, as shown in the Underdog Damage column of the Insurgent table.

Just to be clear, Underdog can trigger when a creature attacks and misses you and any time that a creature damages you?

It’s noted that this can only be used once per turn, but it could be used multiple times in a round (similar to sneak attack), such as part of an Opportunity Attack since this doesn’t occur on your turn?


Fighting Style
Starting at 2nd level, you adopt a particular style of fighting as your specialty. Choose one of the following options. You can’t take a Fighting Style option more than once, even if you later get to choose again.

Simple Weapon Mastery. When you wield a simple weapon with two hands, it gains the reach property, and when you wield a simple weapon in one hand, it gains the light property if it does not have it already.

I’ve removed all the copy-paste fighting styles and am concentrating on the custom (?) one.

Is it DM fiat whether you can realistically wield a weapon with two hands (e.g. dagger)? What happens if you wield a weapon that has the two handed property in one hand (do the rules even allow for this)? How does this style apply to simple ranged weapons (e.g. would a dart thrown in one hand gain the light property)?

Don’t get me wrong, I’m all for having fighting styles custom for a class and do it quite a bit myself… I just had some questions in regards to this particular style.


Subversive Action
By 2nd level, you have developed ways of undermining your enemies and leaving them vulnerable to your allies' attacks. You can use a bonus action on your turn to take the Disarm or Help actions, or to shove or grapple a creature.

Other than Demolition Expert in one of the callings, there is no resource conflict with Subversive Action against your Bonus Action – essentially, you would use this every turn as applicable. Is this as intended? The Disarm and Help certainly fit but I have some concerns about the balance of allowing grapple/shove (as they’re more closely linked to the combat action economy) every turn as a bonus action.


Insurgent's Calling
At 3rd level, you choose your calling within the insurgency. Select one of the options detailed on the next page.


Sworn Enemy
When you reach 3rd level, you develop a deep and abiding enmity towards a certain group or organisation.

Choose a Faction, sovereign government or mercantile organisation. You gain a +2 bonus to attack and damage rolls with weapon attacks against creatures that willingly work for or are allied to that group. Additionally, you have advantage on Wisdom (Survival) checks to track your sworn enemies, as well as on Intelligence checks to recall information about them.

As probably argued many times in regards to the Ranger’s Favored Enemy, this feature can either be completely useless or pure gold – depending on the DM/campaign.

What defines a group (could it be a racial group, say goblins) or a faction?

Perhaps to give this some versatility, consider allowing the Insurgent to change this after a long rest – flavored as studying or preparing. Maybe rename to “Rebellious Planning” or “Coup Focus”


Ability Score Improvement
When you reach 4th level, and again at 8th, 12th, 16th, and 19th level, you can increase one ability score of your choice by 2, or you can increase two ability scores of your choice by 1.

As normal, you can’t increase an ability score above 20 using this feature.


Bleed for the Cause
At 5th level, you think nothing of shedding a little blood if it will bring you closer to victory.

When you make an ability check, you can sacrifice up to 5 hit points. You gain a bonus on that ability check equal to the number of hit points you sacrificed.

Within combat, is there an action cost to this (e.g. reaction, bonus)? Does this apply when you have advantage or disadvantage – bonus applied to each die roll?

Note that this also becomes a trivial sacrifice at later levels when HP is plentiful or when healing is readily available.

I also worry of the effects that this would have on bounded accuracy even though it is similar to the Paladin’s Aura of Protection (excepting that it consumes a resource (HP) and is self only). Where it greatly deviates from the Paladin’s auras is that at maximum cost you gain benefits as if your fueling attribute was a 20.

Finally, how does this manifest/activated? I’m just curious as you could use it with say Propagandist to get a bonus to Persuasion check. Do you suddenly start to bleed as you’re convincing the poor innkeeper to provide you information? Or is it more abstracted – you exert yourself and get noticeably weaker?


Extra Attack
Beginning at 5th level, you can attack twice, instead of once, whenever you take the Attack action on your turn.

I think there’s design space here (and probably precedence within the concept) to eliminate extra attack and either buff/change Bleed for the Cause or introduce another defining feature that played on the class concept.


Propagandist
At 7th level, you become an expert in communicating your radical message to the civilian populace. You have advantage on Charisma (Persuasion) checks when interacting with commoners, peasants and working people. Furthermore, you can always find someone who will provide food, water and shelter when you are in an urban location.

One of the obligatory ribbon features. Decent, though it suffers from a little ambiguity (or DM interpretation) of what/who can be considered a commoner or (especially) working people.


Let it be Welcome
By 9th level, you are so dedicated to your cause that you no longer fear death - by sheer force of will, you press on through the most grueling trials.
Whenever your current HP is less than half of your maximum HP, you have advantage on Constitution and Wisdom saving throws.

Great feature!


Ready for Anything
When you reach 11th level, you can use your Subversive Action to ready an action.

This certainly works though ymmv (I’ve DM’d groups that have never used/don’t know about Readied Actions)… this really allows the Insurgent to control where/when they act during a combat round. I’d almost swap this with Subversive Action which would allay some of the (my subjective opinion) potential balance issues with that feature.


Comrades in Arms
At 13th level, your presence serves as an inspiration to downtrodden people everywhere. Any NPC allies or hirelings you employ that are within 60 feet of you and can see or hear you can use your proficiency bonus in place of their own, if it is higher, and at the beginning of each of their turns they gain temporary hit points equal to your Charisma modifier.

Another niche feature and maybe intended as a quasi-ribbon?. My biggest concern is I’m not sure how often parties employ hirelings – this may be very dependent on the DM/campaign. Perhaps buff this some and make it a 30 foot radius where all allies receive temp HP equal to your Charisma modifier at the start of each round and, as a reaction, they can add your Charisma modifier to a single ability check? Alternately, you could riff of the Bard’s Inspiration to make something more focused as a bonus action – which would compete with Subversive Action for use.


Purgator
By 15th level, your hatred of your Sworn Enemies is so keen that you can ferret them out no matter how well-hidden they may be. You always recognise a member or ally of your Sworn Enemy organisation, even if they are disguised or in a different form (such as a polymorph). They automatically fail on any Dexterity (Sleight of Hand) or Charisma (Deception) checks they make to deceive you.

My comment here would be the same as for Sworn Enemy… If you “fix” the first feature, you likely fix this one.


Seditious Rhetoric
When you reach 18th level, you master several rhetorical tricks to gain the upper hand on your oppressors. You are immune to any magical ability that would compel you to tell the truth or detect when you are lying.

I guess I’d be looking for the last power bump (traditionally at 17th level) here. I really think this feature could be given much earlier and replaced with something that gives a little more “oomph”… perhaps some improvement/expansion of Bleed for the Cause (such as, if you keep that feature as is, allow the cap to move to +10 at the cost of 1 level of exhaustion or allow HP expenditure to clear adverse conditions?)


Viva la Revolución!
At 20th level, the spirit of revolution lives in your veins, filling you with vigour that transcends mortality. When you are reduced to 0 hit points, you do not fall unconscious immediately, but instead continue as normal until the end of your next turn, at which point you fall unconscious if you still have 0 hit points.

You have disadvantage on all attack rolls and ability checks while you have 0 hit points.

I know capstone features rarely play in campaigns and some of the official classes are lackluster here, but I’d give this a serious buff…for example, an Insurgent does not fall unconscious until they die (fail three death saves). While they are at 0 hp, in addition to the disadvantage (which, in some ways is a benefit), they also have disadvantage on death saves on any turn you take an action other than Move.

I did look at the Callings but didn’t have the time to comment those… I’ll catch them later today.

I hope this didn’t come across as too critical. I realized as I was going through this that I’d never critiqued a full class before and so had to fall back upon my professional experience of “auditing” which, in hindsight, is very dry. :smallsmile:

It’s a solid class as is but I think you could do much more with it if you really delve into the two core components (disadvantage, HPs as fuel) and springboard from those to support the three pillars.

Best of luck!

[Ninja_Prawn]

Thanks for the feedback! I probably won't make any changes for this contest, but I will be going away and re-writing afterwards, possibly with a view to releasing the class under the Mage Hand Press banner. So you've been really helpful.


Do you take commission work as someone’s classes (/cough mine) could really use this level of polish. :smallwink:

I really don't have the free time to be taking on that kind of work, sorry!


I’m curious as to the decision behind having the d10 HD? Is this intended as a front line combatant? d8 would “feel” more appropriate but may not provide enough fuel for the Bleed for the Cause feature and would make Underdog perhaps a too dangerous at lower levels?

You know... I've quite forgotten why I made it d10 HD. d8 does seem more fitting... but yes, it probably doesn't jive with the way this class wants to lost hit points.


Multi-classing...

Good points. I hadn't given much thought to multiclassing and some of those things do seem concerning. I'll keep an eye on them when I re-write.


Giving disadvantage until the “start of its next turn” as a special technique can be moot if the creature has already attacked during the round. Perhaps change the wording of this bullet to “the target has disadvantage on its next attack roll”?

Ugh, yeah. This particular feature has been through so many iterations of function and wording that I'm not surprised it's ended up a bit garbled. Your way is better, for sure.


In a general sense, this makes dropping prone a viable tactic for the Insurgent as this would give disadvantage on attacks as well as providing a defensive buff against reach and ranged attacks (attacks beyond 5 feet). Is this intended or should this feature maybe have a caveat of “when you hit with a melee attack”?

I could see an Insurgent’s turn being always as follows: 1) drop prone 2) make ranged attack and apply special technique 3) stand up and use remaining movement.

Damn, well spotted. Abusing the prone condition is not what I want players to do, and I'll need to find a way to write that out. I don't want to restrict them to melee attacks, though.


Just to be clear, Underdog can trigger when a creature attacks and misses you and any time that a creature damages you?

Underdog is available if a creature has attacked or damaged you since your last turn, so yes, you can still add it even if they missed. Although maybe that's too generous... my colleague Mike added that clause because he didn't think being under half HP would happen as often as the Rogue gets Sneak Attack.


It’s noted that this can only be used once per turn, but it could be used multiple times in a round (similar to sneak attack), such as part of an Opportunity Attack since this doesn’t occur on your turn?

Yes, that's the intent.


custom (?)

Yes, written by me, specifically for this class.


Is it DM fiat whether you can realistically wield a weapon with two hands (e.g. dagger)? What happens if you wield a weapon that has the two handed property in one hand (do the rules even allow for this)? How does this style apply to simple ranged weapons (e.g. would a dart thrown in one hand gain the light property)?

Well, I was assuming that you wield single-handed weapons in one hand and two-handed weapons in two hands. So a dagger isn't wielded in two hands. Versatile weapons (i.e. quarterstaves) switch which bonus they get when you switch grips. Ranged weapons also benefit, if it makes sense (so a dart does become light, but a shortbow doesn't gain reach. Well, unless you use it as an improvised melee weapon... then it probably does gain reach).


Other than Demolition Expert in one of the callings, there is no resource conflict with Subversive Action against your Bonus Action – essentially, you would use this every turn as applicable. Is this as intended? The Disarm and Help certainly fit but I have some concerns about the balance of allowing grapple/shove (as they’re more closely linked to the combat action economy) every turn as a bonus action.

It's kind of intended. Certainly from level 11 on, because readying an attack action as a bonus action is the major damage bump at that level. I don't know if BA grappling is that strong. I've seen it given out as a racial before, and this is a core class feature, intended to be comparable in power to Cunning Action.


As probably argued many times in regards to the Ranger’s Favored Enemy, this feature can either be completely useless or pure gold – depending on the DM/campaign.

Yeah, nothing I can do about that. This feature can't really be changed much, since it's vital to the fluff and one of the few exploration-focussed abilities in the class.


What defines a group (could it be a racial group, say goblins) or a faction?

No, it can't be a racial/species group. The mechanical part here is the "a Faction, sovereign government or mercantile organisation". Factions are defined by WotC (Hapers, Zhentarim, Lord's Alliance), sovereign governments are usually pretty obvious (Royal family of Cormyr, Masked Lords of Waterdeep, Menzoberranzan's Council of Eight), and mercantile organisations should be well defined in most settings (Iron Throne, Seven Suns Trading Coster, Arcane Bortherhood). Those are your only sworn enemy options at present, for the sake of clarity.


Perhaps to give this some versatility, consider allowing the Insurgent to change this after a long rest – flavored as studying or preparing. Maybe rename to “Rebellious Planning” or “Coup Focus”

Kind of undercuts the 'single-minded devotion to the cause' angle I've been working, non?


Within combat, is there an action cost to this (e.g. reaction, bonus)? Does this apply when you have advantage or disadvantage – bonus applied to each die roll?

No action cost, you just lose the HP. At present I'd say it applies to both rolls, but I am thinking I'll put in a specific clause to say you have to spend the HP twice on an advantaged or disadvantaged roll.


Note that this also becomes a trivial sacrifice at later levels when HP is plentiful or when healing is readily available.

That's fine. You still gotta get down to half HP to activate Underdog, after all. That's what's generating the risk here; Bleed for the Cause is really just a mechanism (that is under the player's control) to get you there.


I also worry of the effects that this would have on bounded accuracy even though it is similar to the Paladin’s Aura of Protection (excepting that it consumes a resource (HP) and is self only). Where it greatly deviates from the Paladin’s auras is that at maximum cost you gain benefits as if your fueling attribute was a 20.

I'm not too concerned about that... it can't influence saves or attack rolls anyway.


Finally, how does this manifest/activated? I’m just curious as you could use it with say Propagandist to get a bonus to Persuasion check. Do you suddenly start to bleed as you’re convincing the poor innkeeper to provide you information? Or is it more abstracted – you exert yourself and get noticeably weaker?

Hah! Despite the literal wording, I definitely hope people interpret it in a more abstract way. That said, being covered in your own blood could well make you more persuasive if you're pleading for help!


I think there’s design space here (and probably precedence within the concept) to eliminate extra attack and either buff/change Bleed for the Cause or introduce another defining feature that played on the class concept.

Maybe. I'll think about it.


Another niche feature and maybe intended as a quasi-ribbon?

It's intended as a fairly bulky ribbon, yes. I'll think about making it a BA power... but Subversive Action is an important prop for keeping the class competitive. I don't want to take that away too often.


I guess I’d be looking for the last power bump (traditionally at 17th level) here. I really think this feature could be given much earlier and replaced with something that gives a little more “oomph”… perhaps some improvement/expansion of Bleed for the Cause (such as, if you keep that feature as is, allow the cap to move to +10 at the cost of 1 level of exhaustion or allow HP expenditure to clear adverse conditions?)

That's a very good point. I probably have neglected the high level features a bit. Improving Bleed... could certainly work.


I know capstone features rarely play in campaigns and some of the official classes are lackluster here, but I’d give this a serious buff…for example, an Insurgent does not fall unconscious until they die (fail three death saves). While they are at 0 hp, in addition to the disadvantage (which, in some ways is a benefit), they also have disadvantage on death saves on any turn you take an action other than Move.

Excellent suggestion. I'll certainly be using that. And yes, the disadvantage is intended to be partly beneficial as well as realistic.

[WarrentheHero]

Yeah. I'd like to get more feedback myself, which means I'll have to do more reviews of other work :smallsmile:

I've used the same style of feature in a couple other home-brews that never got any commentary before, so anything I learn from this will transfer to those.

Your Protean seems really good to me. To be honest, when I first saw it like two days after the contest was posted, I immediately lost hope. But there are a few minor nitpicks.

The first is not something I personally take issue with, but that I could see some others maybe having one. The class doesn't focus on attacks, but does rely on them and goes so far as to have Extra Attack on the base class. In a lot of ways, the class feels like a Barbarian, which is in some ways what the contest is meant to avoid. Since the focus on the class isnt the attacks but the mutations, I personally don't mind this as much.

I also want to clarify Persistant Mutation.

Starting at 10th level, you can keep one mutation active even after you switch it out for another, as long as the body slot is not used by the new mutation. This persisted mutation does not count against your active mutation limit, but you only get the effect of the basic level of the mutation. Starting at 18th level you can persist two mutations in this way. So with this feature you can have Four simultaneous Mutations, correct? One from your Strain, two from the base feature according to the table, and one more for Persistant Mutation, but only its basic level? I just want to be sure I understand this correctly. Also, I would probably say "You do not gain the Greater or Perfect Mutations from a mutation kept active this way" rather than "basic level", which is not a mechanically-defined term.


Aberrant Physiology
Starting at 13th level, you count as an aberration when determining legal targets of spells. You also gain immunity to poison as well as magical effects that change your shape.
Does this mean you no longer count as Humanoid, or that you count as both Humanoid and Abberation?


Master of Mutations
At level 20, activating mutations no longer requires an action. Each body part can only be mutated once per turn, and two mutations that share a body part cannot be active simultaneously.
Maybe a little bit more clarification here? I assume the intent is only on your turn, but it says "once per turn" which theoretically means you could swap out all your mutations on each enemy and ally's turn, which is crazy.


Aberrant Senses (Head)
Activation: 1 action
While this mutation is active, you have advantage on any saving throw made against being blinded or deafened and can see in dim light as it it were bright light for 120 feet. If you already have the Darkvision feature, the range of that feature increases to 120 feet.
Is this meant to grant Darkvision for any distance? Or just purely Dim Light? It feels like it should be Darkvision


Geckos’ Toes (Legs/Feet)
Activation: 1 action
As long as you are not wearing boots or shoes, you gain a climb speed equal to your regular speed. In addition, you can pick up, hold, and manipulate objects with your feet, as long as you don’t require both feet for balance.
Seems like a weird restriction. It makes sense to a degree, but Spiderman wears boots, and there's no restriction on gloves. And this excludes anyone who wants this mutation from wearing magical boots, which are some of the best items in my personal opinion.


Leaping Legs (Legs/Feet)
Activation: 1 action
You can jump vertically as far as you can jump horizontally. When you fall you only take half of the normal falling damage.
Greater Mutation: You always count as having a running start when jumping. In addition you can perform a leaping attack. When you fall at least 10 feet and make a successful weapon attack against another creature, the target must make a Strength saving throw or be knocked prone. If you would have taken falling damage, you take none and the target takes the whole amount as additional damage.
Perfected Mutation: The falling damage dealt by your leaping attacks is doubled. Jumping only costs 1 foot of movement for every 2 feet jumped and your jump distance is doubled.
Jumping already costs one foot of jump = 1 foot of move. The Perfected Mutation doesn't grant a benefit in that regard. I would say instead that you become allowed to jump a distance greater than your movement. So if you have a movespeed of 30, normally you can only jump 30 feet. But with this, if you have a movespeed of 30, and you have a high enough Strength, you could jump 35 or 40 feet or something like that.


Tireless Gait (Legs/Feet, visible)
Activation: 1 minute
You grow an extra set of legs and your body adapts to this new plan. You can travel at a fast pace for up to 12 hours without suffering any ill effects.
This.. won't be used. D&D uses adventuring groups and travel pace is for the whole group. Without the entire group being able to travel at a fast pace (which wouldn't be a logical benefit for this class or mutation), this is going to be made almost useless.


Thermal Adaptation (Torso)
Activation: 1 action
You are now comfortable at all temperatures between -50 and 100 degrees. You also gain resistance to non-magical fire and cold damage.
In 5th edition, there is no difference between magical and non-magical fire damage. You could keep this in, but it will be a weird outlier and I don't think it will actually help much, as nearly all fire and cold damage an adventurer would usually come across originates from spells.


Additional Proficiencies
You gain proficiency in light armor and the Deception skill.
Mutated Charm
When you choose this Strain, you gain proficiency in Constitution and Charisma saving throws.
You also gain the Claws mutation; this mutation does not count against your active mutations limit.
Based on the names of these features, I think the saving throw proficiencies should be in Additional Proficiencies and the Deception should be in Mutated Charm.

[PhoenixPhyre]

Your Protean seems really good to me. To be honest, when I first saw it like two days after the contest was posted, I immediately lost hope. But there are a few minor nitpicks.

The first is not something I personally take issue with, but that I could see some others maybe having one. The class doesn't focus on attacks, but does rely on them and goes so far as to have Extra Attack on the base class. In a lot of ways, the class feels like a Barbarian, which is in some ways what the contest is meant to avoid. Since the focus on the class isnt the attacks but the mutations, I personally don't mind this as much.


Yeah, I couldn't think of a way to avoid that. But I think there's enough other going on there to avoid the "I attack" syndrome.



I also want to clarify Persistant Mutation.
So with this feature you can have Four simultaneous Mutations, correct? One from your Strain, two from the base feature according to the table, and one more for Persistant Mutation, but only its basic level? I just want to be sure I understand this correctly. Also, I would probably say "You do not gain the Greater or Perfect Mutations from a mutation kept active this way" rather than "basic level", which is not a mechanically-defined term.


Yes. You can always have your Strain's mutation, two "normal" ones at full power, and one more at base level. Thus, you can have 3 or 4 slots filled until level 20, when you can go full out for a bit. I agree about the wording change.



Does this mean you no longer count as Humanoid, or that you count as both Humanoid and Abberation?

Intent was for the type to actually change completely. It's a minor boost unless your DM is commonly throwing Hold Person or some of the other few type-specific spells at you.



Maybe a little bit more clarification here? I assume the intent is only on your turn, but it says "once per turn" which theoretically means you could swap out all your mutations on each enemy and ally's turn, which is crazy.


Oops. That's meant to be on your turn only.



Is this meant to grant Darkvision for any distance? Or just purely Dim Light? It feels like it should be Darkvision


Hmm...I'll have to think about that. I'm not sure what my intent originally was.



Seems like a weird restriction. It makes sense to a degree, but Spiderman wears boots, and there's no restriction on gloves. And this excludes anyone who wants this mutation from wearing magical boots, which are some of the best items in my personal opinion.


Good point. I was going for flavor (as in physically mutating your feet to grip things should be hampered by boots), but playability is also important.



Jumping already costs one foot of jump = 1 foot of move. The Perfected Mutation doesn't grant a benefit in that regard. I would say instead that you become allowed to jump a distance greater than your movement. So if you have a movespeed of 30, normally you can only jump 30 feet. But with this, if you have a movespeed of 30, and you have a high enough Strength, you could jump 35 or 40 feet or something like that.


With the perfected mutation, you only cost 1 foot per 2 feet of jump and your jump distance is doubled. Thus, if you have a move of 30 and 20 STR, you can jump 40 feet, using only 20 of your movement.



This.. won't be used. D&D uses adventuring groups and travel pace is for the whole group. Without the entire group being able to travel at a fast pace (which wouldn't be a logical benefit for this class or mutation), this is going to be made almost useless.


The idea is that if you have to, for instance, run for help or to raise an alarm, you can go straight through. The big part of that one is that you can pull large loads. So you can pull a cart with your buddies in it and they can sleep while you run, covering a large amount of terrain (~3x as much). Niche, but useful IMO.



In 5th edition, there is no difference between magical and non-magical fire damage. You could keep this in, but it will be a weird outlier and I don't think it will actually help much, as nearly all fire and cold damage an adventurer would usually come across originates from spells.


Good point. I'll change that. I must have misread an item.



Based on the names of these features, I think the saving throw proficiencies should be in Additional Proficiencies and the Deception should be in Mutated Charm.

Probably true.

Thanks!

[WarrentheHero]

So when specifically is the contest over? The post says the 23rd but Requilac said at one point maybe the 16th? I don't know which

[Requilac]

So when specifically is the contest over? The post says the 23rd but Requilac said at one point maybe the 16th? I don't know which

It’s still the 23rd. I was contemplating pushing the deadline earlier, but decided not to.

[Blackbando]

Apologies if this was already asked earlier, as I don't have enough time currently to browse all the threads to find the answer to this, but would a class that gained cantrips (not focusing on them, but just getting them as a method of attack) be eligible for the idea?

[Requilac]

Apologies if this was already asked earlier, as I don't have enough time currently to browse all the threads to find the answer to this, but would a class that gained cantrips (not focusing on them, but just getting them as a method of attack) be eligible for the idea?

This paragraph should explain it all.



1) The class you homebrew should be a non-casting class which doesn’t focus on making weapon attacks either . This does not necessarily mean your class must be non-magical, but it should not cast any spells in the conventional manner. This contest was designed to represent interesting features not constrained to spells, so unconventional casting methods (such as through ki) will be frowned upon too. So long as you can justify that your class follows the theme in anyway it is valid. Although you cannot be punished for making a class which does not follow the theme well, it is unlikely that your work will get voted for if you do so.

[Mourne]

Investigator Review

Sorry for the lateness! Brief review incoming. I’m only covering the core features as I feel that something needs to be addressed in the defining feature which could potentially alter how the (empirical) archetypes would be constructed/function.

As normal, this is all purely my opinion and is intended as constructive.

I really have a soft spot for Scholar/Academic/Investigator classes. Great pick and a solid start!

I've copied the features in the spoiler for clarity.

Flawless Analyst (level 1)
Your observational skills have been honed to an uncanny degree of excellency. Even while in the heat of combat you can quickly examine your opponent or obstacle and determine their strengths and weaknesses.

The act of doing so is mentally exhausting though so you can only do it a limited number of times. Your ability to exercise this talent is represented by Analysis Points. You have a number of Analysis Points equal to your intelligence modifier . All uses are restored after you complete a short or long rest.

When you use a bonus action to expend an analysis point, you learn some of the following statistics about one creature or object which you can see. It is impossible for you to use this trait if you are blinded. You learn an amount of statistics chosen from the list below equal to your proficiency bonus each time you use this feature.



The creature's type (and subtype if applicable) or, if it is an object, what type of material (such as metal, stone or wood) it is made out of.
One of the creature's ability scores.
Choose any number between 1 and 30. You learn if the creature's/object's armor class is greater than, less than or equal to that number.
Choose any number between 1 and 700. You learn whether the creature's/object's current hit points are greater then, less than or equal to that number.
What that creature's/object's damage resistances and immunities are.
What that creature's/object's damage vulnerabilites are.
Choose any number between 1 and 30. You learn if the creature's attack bonus for one attack of your choice is greater than, less than or equal to that number.
The damage type(s) of one attack or feature of your choice which the creature/object can peform.
Choose any number between 1 and 100. You learn whether the average damage dealt by one attack or feature of your choice which the creature/object can perform is greater then, less than or equal to that number.
Choose any number between 1 and 30. You learn if the saving throw DC of one effect which the creature or object causes is greater than, less than or equal to that number.
The title of one special feature of your choice and all of the details about it except for the exact numbers of its save DC, damage or similar statistics.
All of the additional types of speed that creature possesses. This does not tell you how fast they can move with these different speeds, just if they can move in that manner.
Choose a number between 0 and 150. You learn if one of the creature's speeds of your choice is greater than, less than or equal to that number.
Choose any number between 1 and 30. You learn If the bonus the creature gets to saving throws tied to a specific ability score of your choice is greater than, less than or equal to that number.
All of the creature's skill proficiencies. This does not tell you their proficiency bonus, just which proficiencies they have.
All of the condition immunities that creature/object has.
All of the special senses which that creature has.
Choose any number between 0 and 150. You learn if the radius of one of the creature's special senses of your choice is greater than, less than or equal to that number.
All of the languages which that creature knows. If the creature is telepathic, you know that too but you can't determine the exact radius of the telepathy.


Improved Analysis (level 2)
Your analytical skills have been enhanced and you can now almost instantly detect weaknesses in your foe's offensive or defensive strategy. Whenever you use your Flawless Analyst feature, you may choose any of the following options instead of learning some statistics. If you choose to grant an effect of this feature to an ally instead of yourself (as mentioned in the effect's description), you do so using your Telepathy feature.


You carefully examine the motions that a creature takes to make its attacks and determine how to best deflect them. You or one ally of your choice can add your proficiency bonus to their/your AC against any attack roll made by that single creature until the end of your next turn.
You study the areas of the body which the creature prefers to strike and ascertain how to best avoid taking damage. You or one ally of your choice can decrease the damage roll of any attack made by that single target by your proficiency bonus until the end of your next turn.
You look for any less well protected part of the creature and determine how to aim there the best. You or one ally of your choice can add your proficiency bonus to any attack rolls made against that single creature until the end of your next turn.
You assess where the vital areas of a creature is and deduce how to best strike them. You or one ally of your choice can add your proficiency bonus to any damage rolls made against that single target until the end of your next turn.


I’m combining my comments in regards to Flawless Analyst and Improved Analysis in one as I believe they should be a single feature as 1) Flawless Analyst alone is (imo) a ribbon which shouldn’t stand alone as the class defining feature, 2) the guessing game with the ranges makes the feature depend a lot on guessing and might slow down the game flow if multiple guesses had to be made and responded to, and 3) it seems odd to have a feature and then give an upgraded feature one level later.

First, general comments in regards to both features… Flawless Analyst notes that it does not work if you are blinded. Does this include not working in darkness (assuming you cannot see – or even if you can, as darkvision only allows for shades of grey)? What about areas of dim light where perception is generally impacted? In regards to Improved Analysis, I would suggest that you don’t tie any of the features to proficiency bonus as this would allow the feature to scale with any class on a (multi-class) dip. Any class would greatly benefit from a 2 level dip in this class as it would allow for a +6 (at upper levels) to either AC, attack roll, or – to a lesser extent – the damage buff or decrease. Consider replacing this with a bonus tied specifically to this class (e.g. Insight Bonus) that scales similarly to something like Barbarian’s Rage bonus.

This is how I would change/combine the two features (noting that it would be the class defining feature given at level 1).

Of course, and this may be a good thing, some design space would open up at level 2. You’d need an additional feature.

Revised Flawless Analysis
Your observational skills have been honed to an uncanny degree of excellence. Even while in the heat of combat you can quickly examine your opponent or obstacle and determine their strengths and weaknesses.

The act of doing so is mentally exhausting though so you can only do it a limited number of times. Your ability to exercise this talent is represented by Analysis Points. You have a number of Analysis Points equal to your intelligence modifier. All uses are restored after you complete a short or long rest.
If you choose to grant an effect of this feature to an ally instead of yourself (as mentioned in the effect's description), the ally must be able to see or hear you and uses their reaction to gain the benefit of the feature.


You draw upon your knowledge and deductive reasoning to discern the strengths and weaknesses of an observed creature. Make an Investigation check against a DC of 10 + the creature’s CR. If you are successful, you learn the creature’s AC, normal HPs, damage resistances and vulnerabilities, attack types, and any special features. A creature is aware of this observation and may react accordingly.
You carefully examine the motions that a creature takes to make its attacks and determine how to best deflect them. You or one ally of your choice can add your Insight bonus to their/your AC against any attack roll made by that single creature until the end of your next turn.
You study the areas of the body which the creature prefers to strike and ascertain how to best avoid taking damage. You or one ally of your choice can decrease the damage roll of any attack made by that single target by your Insight bonus until the end of your next turn.
You look for any less well protected part of the creature and determine how to aim there the best. You or one ally of your choice can add your Insight bonus to any attack rolls made against that single creature until the end of your next turn.
You assess where the vital areas of a creature is and deduce how to best strike them. You or one ally of your choice can add your Insight bonus to any damage rolls made against that single target until the end of your next turn.


Expertise (level 1)
Choose two of your skill proficiencies, two of your tool proficiencies, or a skill proficiency and a tool proficiency. Your proficiency bonus is doubled for any ability check you make that uses either of the chosen proficiencies.

At level 10, you choose another two proficiencies to gain this benefit.

I’d like to see this more geared to this specific class rather than a cut/paste. Perhaps re-flavor the feature name and lock in “expertise” with Investigation with one additional skill or tool of choice? It might be also be fun to add the Insight Bonus to passive perception.

Telepathy (level 2)
You can communicate telepathically with any creature within 120 feet of you.

You don't need to share a language with the creature for it to understand your telepathic utterances, but the creature must be able to understand at least one language. Whenever you send a telepathic message to a creature, they can decide to immediately send another message back.

Whenever you use your Flawless Analyst feature, you may also decide to immediately and telepathically send the information you learned to up to ten allies within range.

Is the intent here that you do not need to speak a common language with the targeted creature(s)?

At level 13, You can use your action to establish a telepathic bond with a willing creature that you have been within 120 feet of for at least an hour. A bonded target can telepthically communicate with you beyond any distance so long as you are both on the same plane of existence. A bonded target can send telepathic messages to you at any time and vice versa. You can only be bonded with one creature at a time. This bond ends whenever you use this feature to create a bond with another creature, or if you consciously decide to drop it on your turn (no action required).

I think the addition of “on your turn…” is probably unnecessary.

Unconventional Actions (level 3)
As an Investigator you have become accustomed to assissting your group fight enemies by performing the activities which others can rarely afford to do. Because of this you can frequently commit to these tasks with more efficiency than ohters. You gain all of the following benefits.

Dodge: While under the effects of the Dodge action you have advantage on all saving throws and the action's benefits cannot end prematurely if your speed is dropped to 0.

Help: If you take the Help action to aid an ally in making an attack roll, then you do not need to be within 5 ft of the target so long as that ally can be affected by your Telepathy and you can see the target.

Search: If you take the Search action on your turn you can use a bonus action to make a single weapon attack.

Use an Object: You can interact with up to five objects on your turn before you must make the Use an Object action to interact with a sixth.

Stabilize: When you use your action to administer first aid to a creature with 0 hit points, you automatically succeed on the check and the target regains an amount of hit points equal to your intelligence modifier.

How is the Use an Object feature intended to interact with things such as drinking a potion? Also, I’m not sure stabilize really fits in the Investigator theme you have going… it’s more a Scholar type niche.

Empirical Archetype (level 3)
At 3rd level, you choose an empirical archetype. The archetype you choose grants you features at 3rd level and again at 5th, 7th, 9th, 11th and 14th level.

Calculated Strike (level 4)
You have learned to put all of your focus into carefully measuring out how to best hit your opponent. You may use a bonus action on your turn to target one enemy whithin 150 ft of you that you can see. After the target has been chosen make an Intelligence (Investigation) with a DC equal to 8 + the target's dexterity modifier + the target's proficiency bonus. If you succeed on this check then the next weapon attack you make against that target until the end of your current turn is a critical hit. In additon, if you roll a 1 on the d20 for an attack roll which has the benefit of this feature, you can re-roll the die and must use the new roll.

It might be cleaner to make the DC here equal to 8 + the target’s AC (for example).

Ability Score Improvement (Level 4)
When you reach 4th level, and again at 8th, 10th, 12th, 15th, 17th and 19th level, you can increase one ability score of your choice by 2, or you can increase two ability scores of your choice by 1. As normal, you can’t increase an ability score above 20 using this feature.

Psychic Linguist (level 6)
You learn an additional two languages of your choice. This can inlcude languages spoken only by one type of creature, such as gnoll or yeti.

In addition to that, you have recieved the ability to telepathically probe the mind of somebody and learn a language which they know. Choose one creature within 120 ft. of you that you have heard speak. The target must then succeed on a wisdom saving throw with a DC equal to your passive Intelligence (Investigation) score. If the target is willing, then they have disadvantage on the check. On a failure you automatically learn one language of your choice that they know, but on a success nothing happens.

Either way, the target cannot tell that you have tried to use this trait on them unless they are proficient with insight . Creatures which have proficiency with insight suffer a harmless migraine if they are subjected to this feature, but cannot pinpoint the exact cause.

You can understand, speak, read and write this language you learned until you complete a long rest, after which it fades from your memory.

Once you use this feature you cannot use it again until you complete a long rest.

At level 16, a target of this feature automatically fails the saving throw unless it is immune to mind reading effects. In additon to that, you learn another two languages.

If the target is willing, I don’t see the need to force a saving throw at all.

Psionic Warcry (level 18)
Whenver you use your Improved Analysis feature, instead of granting that benefit to one target or yourself, you may instead give that effect to you and up to 10 creatures (using your Telepathy).
Once you use this feature you cannot use it again until you complete a short or long rest.

I would consider long rest ONLY as a recovery. A lot of power here (as you’re in the +6 to everything now). If you do make a change to the core feature (such as requiring a reaction on the part of the recipient), you could probably get away with short or long recoveries.

Blindsight (level 20)
Not only has your ability to observe by sight become unparalleled, but your other senses too have reached a capacity beyond belief. You have blindsight out to a 120 ft. radius. Because of this, you no longer need to see a target to be able to use any feature or spell which requires it. This feature does not work if you are deafened.

I don’t feel the deafened part is needed --– this is a capstone (and, as the first sentence indicates, the other four sense would more than make up for the [temporary] loss of hearing)

In closing, I like the class but there are expected power bumps at 5th, 11th, and 17th levels. The archetypes might cover this at 11th level but it’s certainly not a traditional progression of features.

Again, sorry for the brief review, but I wanted to squeeze in this one (and one additional) before the contest ends.

Best of luck!

[Jama7301]

It's the home stretch. Good luck everyone. :smallsmile:

[Requilac]

Alright everyone, the voting period begins in almost exactly 24 hours, so if you have any last minute changes add those in really quick. Once voting begins no changes can be made to the class.

[Requilac]

@ Mourne

Thank you for giving me such a great review. I will make sure to at least consider all of this.

1) The reason why Flawless Analyst is given at 1st level and the next level I gave Improved Analysis was mainly for simplicity's sake. Although both are fueled by the same points, they have very different effects. I thought that the feature would look too confusing if it was all one massive feature and people might be duanted by it too much. The actual technical difference isn't that much by making two seperate features, but it makes it a lot easier for some people to comprehend. That and I didn't want to frontload the Investigator with such a great feature at 1st level and wanted to spread it out a little more. This decision was made for User Interactivity Simplicity over any sort of in game mechanical reason.

2) The guessing of ranges would indeed take a little bit, but I don't think it would take any longer than casting does. If the person plans out what they want ahead of time it shouldn't take too long. And a lot of time when you are looking for specific distances you would already have a pretty good idea of what something was higher than. The only major reason this process would go slow is if people were doing it inefficiently.

3) For Improved Analysis I think that the proficiency bonus works a lot better than using some sort of die. The way it is currently is a lot simpler and quicker and is more distinguished from the bard's inspiration. I also think that the flat bonus gives a superficial appearance of extra power, though exactly why I can't tell. And really I am not factoring multi-classing into this equation at all, as that is something which is nearly impossible to control well due to the sheer number of different class options.

4) I don't really think it is a good idea to make Investigators have Investigation as one of their expertise options (as odd as that sounds). It devalues the feature a little. And I don't believe I fully understand how exactly one could substitute Passive Perception with Insight, as the two are fairly different things. How exactly does one become so great at telling when someone is lying that they can suddenly detect the presence of traps better? That being said, I don't think it is a great idea to change the name as Expertise is a well recognized name for the mechanism.

5) The main idea of Telepathy was to be an explanation of how you are transmitting the information you got from Flawless Analyst to an ally without alerting the enemy of what you found. I quickly realized that by just verbal speaking, an enemy could hear what you are telling an ally too. That and I think the Telepathy gives Investigators a sort of eldritch flavor which makes them seem more at place in a D&D world.

6) The Uncoventional Action allows you to take the Use an Object Action as described in the PHB. If something states that it takes an action to use, such as drinking or administering a potion, then it is not covered by the Use an Object Action. Ironically, sometimes using an object is not considered part of the Use an Object Action. And the reason stabilize is there is the same reason why Unconventional Actions is there in the first place. You are better at doing what everyone else typically can't afford to do due to action economy. It's not much of a reliable healing system either.

7) I fail to see why the DC of calculated strike should be the target's AC. That feels just sort of weird to me. In the first part of calculated strike you aren't hitting the target with a gaze attack, you are just sort of analyzing them.

8) I still think it makes much more sense for the Investigator to have a chance to fail to pick up the language even if the target is willing. I am willing to bet many would find it weird that it can't fail on a willing target.

9) Psionic Warcry is a level 18 feature, I think it can stand to be a little powerful. Analyst still only lasts one turn and only against one enemy, so I don't see anything terrible with the +6 bonus even then.

10) Yeah, I got rid of the clause that states that being Deafened negates Blindsight. I also made it so that Analyst still works while someone is blinded.

A lot of good stuff here @Morne, thank you for all your help. Sorry I didn't accept many of your changes, I just thought through a lot of this a head of time. If I had the time I would do a review of yours. My apologies once again. And one final time, thank you.

[Requilac]

The competition is now over and the voting period has begun. You have one week to submit your votes. Please go over the rules again before you do so.

[JNAProductions]

Req, can you edit the first post in the Voting Thread, so people know it's voting time?

[Requilac]

Req, can you edit the first post in the Voting Thread, so people know it's voting time?

Aye. I just took care of that.

[JNAProductions]

Aye. I just took care of that.

Many thanks.

Also, Phoenix, mind if I get a rationale behind your numbers on the Marshal? I totally get 2/5 fluff (I gave virtually none) but I feel it was pretty on-theme. Marshals don't get spells, and you can contribute pretty well levels 1-10 without ever making an attack roll. Levels 11+ you'll start making one a turn, at least, in combat, since you have Swing And 'Spire, but I hardly feel one attack per round starting at Tier 3 of play is themebreaking much.

[PhoenixPhyre]

Many thanks.

Also, Phoenix, mind if I get a rationale behind your numbers on the Marshal? I totally get 2/5 fluff (I gave virtually none) but I feel it was pretty on-theme. Marshals don't get spells, and you can contribute pretty well levels 1-10 without ever making an attack roll. Levels 11+ you'll start making one a turn, at least, in combat, since you have Swing And 'Spire, but I hardly feel one attack per round starting at Tier 3 of play is themebreaking much.

A 3 for me is normal. I'll go back and look at it. It just didn't strike me when I read it, I guess.

Edit: I'll edit my rankings. The total doesn't change much, but the focus is different. Re-reading, it does fit the theme well, but the mechanics are confusing as heck, mainly due to cryptic writing. You get Extra Attack twice, but don't usually make attacks? Spending a whole round (~1/3 of an average combat) to get back points feels...annoying. I know it's a mechanic from 3e's ToB, but I don't like it.

So that puts it at 5 Theme (good), 2 Fluff (I don't have a mental picture of what he's doing), and 2 Mechanics. Total 9/15.

And I guess I interpreted the theme a bit differently--I was more focused on the "non-overtly-magic" side, and figured as long as you can do something else in combat and elsewhere (the Protean was all about movement, with one that gains lots of benefits to grappling) it would work. I didn't see the theme as being "don't make attack rolls" as much as "do something other than just attack every round." :shrug:

[JNAProductions]

A 3 for me is normal. I'll go back and look at it. It just didn't strike me when I read it, I guess.

And I guess I interpreted the theme a bit differently--I was more focused on the "non-overtly-magic" side, and figured as long as you can do something else in combat and elsewhere (the Protean was all about movement, with one that gains lots of benefits to grappling) it would work. I didn't see the theme as being "don't make attack rolls" as much as "do something other than just attack every round." :shrug:

I feel like Inspiration meets that pretty well. The Auras are passive (though can be swapped around as needed, for a little active use) but Inspiration is something to do other than attack.

[PhoenixPhyre]

I feel like Inspiration meets that pretty well. The Auras are passive (though can be swapped around as needed, for a little active use) but Inspiration is something to do other than attack.

Edited with my reread. The theme is fine, but those mechanics...I wasn't sure what I was reading there.

[Requilac]

Oh JNA, I believe you said you couldn't acess the homebrewery link for the Investigator properly? Here is a PDF of it.

http://homebrewery.naturalcrit.com/print/r1ZS3cnznz?dialog=true

[Requilac]

Alright, here are the points each class has scored so far. You can also find this list in the OP of the voting thread.

Voting Points
Investigator (By the Messiah): 9,001
Inventor (By WarrentheHero): 16
Seeker (By Mourne): 7
Investigator (By Requilac): 7
Daredevil (By Jormengard): 6
Insurgent (By Ninjaprawn): 5
Spirit Caller (By MoleMage): 5
Marshal (By JNA productions): 1
Protean (By Pheonixphyre): 1

...
...
...

Well holy flying cow batman! @ Warren, you could have at least given us a chance.

[Ninja_Prawn]

How much longer 'til voting closes? It's pretty close from 2nd down to 6th places, and Jormengand hasn't voted yet so the leaderboard could yet be turned on its head!

[Requilac]

How much longer 'til voting closes? It's pretty close from 2nd down to 6th places, and Jormengand hasn't voted yet so the leaderboard could yet be turned on its head!

Voting closes on the 30th. We still have a decent amount of time left.

[Lanth Sor]

Sorry, It didn't get complete. I also didn't have time to fix formating. Holiday weekend and spontaneous family killed the time.

[WarrentheHero]

Do we want to continue the discussion of next contest's theme? I floated some ideas from earlier, and there's some good ones from the first discussion. Personally, I don't like Incarnum as an idea, cause I worry everyone is going to end up making "you have X body slots, each slot can hold Y incarnum, here's your list of incarnum options" classes. I worry there won't be enough variety in mechanics. That and I never really got Incarnum from 3.5.

I'm partial to Dragons, in part because I have a class I've been half-working on for a while that is totally Dragons. Failing that, elements can still be cool. I shouldn't have posted my elemental Swordmage in a PEACH thread before knowing the new theme though! I also have a few threads of ideas of Terror and/or Phobia.

[Requilac]

I have made some slight rules changes to the upcoming 2nd competition, which you can see below. Most of them were suggested by @WarrentheHero. The biggest change is that you will be allowed (but not required) to make an individual thread for you class.

Welcome to the 2nd competition between playgrounders to create a homebrewed base class for Dungeons and Dragons Fifth Edition. This concept was heavily based around the Base Class Contests for 3.5e on this forum, but they are by no means officially related and this competition runs on slightly a slightly different ruleset. Please only place the your class submissions in this thread and leave other comments for the chat thread. The rules for the contest are as follows.
1) The class you homebrew should follow the theme of X
2) You may only create one base class. If you create more than one class then you must choose which one to enter and remove all the others from this thread and the contest (making them invalid) . If you do not specify which one you favor by the time voting begins, all of your content is invalid.
3) When you submit your class you must create a post on this thread which either has the content or holds a link to it. You may also optionally create one other individual thread for your class on the homebrew design sub-forum. If it is found that you have revealed your class on another site or on another thread then one on the homebrew design sub-forum, you will be disqualified. If you do make a specific thread for you class, please mention its involvement to the competition in that thread.
4) You may use other homebrew content (such as feats, spells, magical items and monsters) or even features which you have created elsewhere to supplement your class, but these must be written at least partially by you. Taking a concept from someone else’s homebrew is acceptable, but the exact mechanics cannot be the same. Failure to comply to either of the previous two rules will result in disqualification.
5) Your class must have fully completed mechanics and descriptions for it to be valid. Entries are due at 11:59 pm on June 23rd Eastern Standard Time. Any submissions after this point are invalid. No changes can be made to your class while voting is taking place. Failure to comply with the previous rule will result in disqualification.
6) Any content which has been declared invalid by the rules above cannot be voted for, but you may decide to remove it from the contest and create another class instead. If you are disqualified then you are not allowed to enter any more homebrew for this competition, though you may still vote and later enter the next competition.
7) Please note that misunderstandings occur, if you break a rule which results in disqualification it might be excused if you can convince the group that it was a result of confusion over the rules.

Keep in mind that this contest is entirely for recreational purposes and there is no reward (aside from bragging rights) for someone who succeeds. Let us begin!


Welcome playgrounders, here is the thread in which you vote for which homebrewed class entered in the current D&D 5e Base Class is the greatest. The voting period will take place between 1:00 am on June 23rd to 11:59 pm on June 30th Eastern Standard time. Votes made outside of that time range while not be included in the total score of each class. It is not necessary for you to compete to vote. If you wish to vote, then give a first, second and third place vote. A first place vote is worth three points, a second place vote is worth two points, and a third place vote is worth one point. A person who votes for their own class must change their vote before the voting period ends or be disqualified. It is suggested that you include the reasoning for your votes, but it is not necessary. Let us begin.



Welcome to the chat thread for the Base Class Competitions for D&D 5e. If you wish to say anything about the competition which is neither a submission nor a vote, then it belongs here. You do not need to be a contestant to post here. You are allowed to critique a competitor’s work and offer suggestions on how to improve their homebrew through this thread, but it is preferred if you do so through that class’ specific thread (if applicable). I will also be holding discussions over what the next competition’s theme should be in here. Let us begin.




Do we want to continue the discussion of next contest's theme? I floated some ideas from earlier, and there's some good ones from the first discussion. Personally, I don't like Incarnum as an idea, cause I worry everyone is going to end up making "you have X body slots, each slot can hold Y incarnum, here's your list of incarnum options" classes. I worry there won't be enough variety in mechanics. That and I never really got Incarnum from 3.5.

I'm partial to Dragons, in part because I have a class I've been half-working on for a while that is totally Dragons. Failing that, elements can still be cool. I shouldn't have posted my elemental Swordmage in a PEACH thread before knowing the new theme though! I also have a few threads of ideas of Terror and/or Phobia.

My personal favorite would have to be terror/fear/phobias too. I was never a big fan of the whole "four elements" system anyhow. It seemed way too unoriginal and inconsistent in nature to me. Dragons are cool and all, but if you ask me, a little overdone. Don't we already have enough dragon themed stuff as is> Terror is a cool subject to go off of and I have got several ideas as to what I could use for that.

[PhoenixPhyre]

My personal favorite would have to be terror/fear/phobias too. I was never a big fan of the whole "four elements" system anyhow. It seemed way too unoriginal and inconsistent in nature to me. Dragons are cool and all, but if you ask me, a little overdone. Don't we already have enough dragon themed stuff as is> Terror is a cool subject to go off of and I have got several ideas as to what I could use for that.

I don't have any good ideas for this one. If terror's the theme, I'll have to sit this one out (at least for now). Can't think of anything and it's well outside my usual wheelhouse.

I would like to see more discussion up front about how people understand the theme and feedback about how well things fit the theme. I can tell I had a very different idea of what the theme was for the last one than most people did. Doesn't really matter, but it was a bit disappointing to reach the voting and realize that it didn't fit very well without having had any feedback to that earlier. :smallfrown:

[Requilac]

I don't have any good ideas for this one. If terror's the theme, I'll have to sit this one out (at least for now). Can't think of anything and it's well outside my usual wheelhouse.

I would like to see more discussion up front about how people understand the theme and feedback about how well things fit the theme. I can tell I had a very different idea of what the theme was for the last one than most people did. Doesn't really matter, but it was a bit disappointing to reach the voting and realize that it didn't fit very well without having had any feedback to that earlier. :smallfrown:

I think some people didn't like the protean because although it didn't cast any spells, it felt too magical. I am guessing some people were just craving for some non-magical classes too and found themselves disappointed by the magical weirdness of the Protean. I explicitly stated that the class could have magical powers so long as those weren't spells, but I guess some people had other expectations in mind. I didn't think your class breached the theme at least.

[PhoenixPhyre]

I think some people didn't like the protean because although it didn't cast any spells, it felt too magical. I am guessing some people were just craving for some non-magical classes too and found themselves disappointed by the magical weirdness of the Protean. I explicitly stated that the class could have magical powers so long as those weren't spells, but I guess some people had other expectations in mind. I didn't think your class breached the theme at least.

The comments I saw mostly addressed the "not a martial" part--they complained about mostly making attacks in combat (which is only sort of true, as one was all about grappling and shoving). :Shrug:

It might be wise to keep the themes to a single word--terror, not "induces fear". Vague but evocative is the sweet spot IMO.

[Ivellius]

I would like to see more discussion up front about how people understand the theme and feedback about how well things fit the theme. I can tell I had a very different idea of what the theme was for the last one than most people did. Doesn't really matter, but it was a bit disappointing to reach the voting and realize that it didn't fit very well without having had any feedback to that earlier. :smallfrown:

As an outside "neutral" observer (that is, I didn't submit anything but still voted), I thought yours fit the theme pretty well. I liked the concept of it.

I would be concerned that "terror" is pretty narrow for a contest like this (especially with the broad classes of 5e), but it might be interesting to see what people would bring.

[Requilac]

As an outside "neutral" observer (that is, I didn't submit anything but still voted), I thought yours fit the theme pretty well. I liked the concept of it.

I would be concerned that "terror" is pretty narrow for a contest like this (especially with the broad classes of 5e), but it might be interesting to see what people would bring.

The narrower the better if you ask me. The less you have to work with, the more creative you get. In my experience at least.

[Ninja_Prawn]

For the record, I thought the Protean fit the theme well. I didn't vote for it because I just wasn't a huge fan of the actual implementation of it, at least compared to other entries. Sorry about not giving more detailed feedback... there were just so many classes to rate, you know?

As for the next contest, I'll probably be sitting it out regardless of theme. Base classes are not my forte and I doubt I'll have the energy to write another this year. I'll be sure to vote, though!

[Requilac]

There is only like 24 hours left to vote for the Investigator. If you have any votes, please make them now before it is too late for the Investigator to win. This will mark the conclusion of the 1st Homebrew Base Class competition.*

*and the victory of me with the Investigator class

[Jama7301]

This was fun. Definitely seeing some flaws in my design process, and need to read things more carefully in the future. I had figured "Base Class" excluded archtypes, but should have been reading the other entries closer and followed suit more.

[Requilac]

Last day to vote everyone! There is only slightly more than six hours left until the competition ends. If you have yet to vote, get your submissions in really quick.

[Requilac]

The voting period has ended and the competition is over. Our winner is WarrentheHero with the Inventor. This was a landslide folks and he got nearly twice as many votes as any other class did at 19 points. Coming in 2nd was the Seeker with 10 points and in third was the Investigator with nine points. It was a good run folks, but it is clear to see who the favorite here was. Congratulations @ WarrentheHero, you have earned internet cookies and bragging rights as the 1st winner of the bi-monthly D&D 5e base class competitions on GitP. Woohoo!

Our next competition will be beginning very soon. The next theme will be that of fear/horror.