Ideas for a magical Painter (artist) character?

[Uncumber]

Hey guys,

So basically I'd just love to hear some ideas/inspiration regarding a new character I'm in the process of creating.

So I've been mulling over this idea for a little while now. We're just about to start a new campaign in a couple of weeks, Tomb of Annihilation - and I thought I'd make this character for the campaign.

I've got an idea in my head about what I imagine - but I can't quite decide on the class -- also, I really would love to hear anybody's ideas regarding this character, about virtually anything!

--

OK, so I've got in my head this character who 'paints' her spells, both on canvas/paper and on the world around her. So, for example:

For 'Conjure Elemental' she might paint a water elemental, and it would jump out of her sketchbook/canvas. For 'Fog Cloud' she'd paint 'fog' and it would seep out of the book - etc.

If she's making a portal (or something) she might paint a door on her canvas, and then paint a door on a nearby tree. Then she can jump into her canvas, and come out at the tree. Something like that.

For 'Animate Objects' she might paint some eyes or a mouth on some kitchen items, etc!

--

So what class? I immediately thought Bard, as to me, that seemed the most intuitive option - simply by replacing a musical instrument for a paintbrush. But then I thought, well, she is 'conjuring' things in to reality from paint and paper - so perhaps a Wizard - Conjurer? But then, would it be more fitting if they weren't 'real' objects, but in fact illusions (as all art sort of is anyway), so perhaps a Wizard - Illusionist? Anybody have any ideas? Perhaps something off the wall that I haven't thought about?

This is stumping me a little bit, because I think this character is such a neat idea with so many cool role playing opportunities (she could be hunting for special pigments in her journey, and be unable to paint things accurately that she hasn't seen before - so many possibilities!) so, I would love to pick a class that best fits this ideal, as I really don't want to regret it!

--

Some ideas I'm having difficulty with (in a roleplay sense) are -

How would a spell such as 'Magic Missile' work? Or really, any targeted 'missile' spell? Would she open her sketchbook and the missiles would 'pew pew' from the pages (what would she be painting!?)? Would she perhaps flick paint at the enemies from her paintbrush, as if it's a wand? Does anybody have any good ideas? Can anybody think of any more concepts they'd have difficulty imagining? I'm pretty sure something might come up and stump me.

Casting times. So I figured for a 'bonus action' she could do a super quick sketch, maybe in charcoal. For an action, perhaps a very quick painting in a sketchbook or small canvas. For a ritual, it would demand a proper painting. Does this even work? It's my understanding that an action is around 6 seconds? I mean, that would be a very quick painting. But I suppose it's doable!

--

As I said, I'd love to hear any ideas - both mechanically and from a roleplay perspective! I'm open to homebrew suggestions as long as they're really balanced, would vastly prefer veering to the side of underpowered than overpowered.

--

Thanks so much for reading all that!

[Keravath]

It is a cool idea.

However, making it work is a challenge since each spell has verbal, somatic and material components. You would need to get your DM to basically change up the entire casting system to accommodate this character.

In addition, as you mention, the time constraints make it impossible to sketch any reasonable sort of picture. An entire round is 6 seconds. In that time, you can move 30', cast a bonus action spell, cast an action cantrip, possibly cast a reaction spell as well as have a free object interaction (open door, draw or sheath weapon etc). You don't have 6 seconds to sketch a picture to cast a spell. You'd be lucky if you have just one second. However, you also need to get your sketch pad out along with your drawing instrument and you will have to hold them in both hands. This means that you can't cast a spell while holding a shield or weapon.

You could describe it as the character drawing a symbol (composed of two or three lines) in the air with the tip of their wand and the symbol is a picture/image/ideogram for the spell being cast but the sketch book and pencil idea to cast spells doesn't really work with the time constraints of the D&D turn system.

You could also have the character use painting strokes for the somatic components of their spells and painting terminology for the verbal components which might be the easiest way. You should be able to revert to using the sketch pad for casting rituals though since there are fewer time constraints.

Finally, there is no magical item better for a painter character than Nolzur's Marvelous Pigments ... they truly make your paintings more realistic :)

[Uncumber]

It is a cool idea.

However, making it work is a challenge since each spell has verbal, somatic and material components. You would need to get your DM to basically change up the entire casting system to accommodate this character. . . .

Oh no I definitely don't want my DM to be changing anything up for me! This is pretty much why I've written this post, to try and see how I can make this fit into the pre-existing rules.

As far as the verbal, somatic and material components - I can see those could be fairly easily refluffed as something painterly. Exactly as you've put - the somantic part could be the painting, the verbal could be the 'painterly termninology' etc.

Regarding the use of both hands vs. holding a shield or weapon - I am alright with that (I think!). I mean, essentially I'd lose out on holding a quarterstaff - which is all I'd be using if I were making a 'classic' wizard anyway. I'm sure at some point in the game I'll wish I was holding a staff instead of a brush, but oh well, I can live with that ^^

The real issue, as you've put it, are the time constraints. How strict are these though? I haven't been playing D&D long enough to understand really. I mean, it strikes me that 6 seconds is not a lot of time at all to do some of the amazing feats of heroism that characters can occasionally pull off. Is it really way too much of a stretch to imagine a very quick sketch (even childlike) to be done in the time it takes for, I don't know, a usual wizard to trace arcane sigils in the air? To me they seem more or less the same - tracing a complex sigil, sketching simple picture.

I'm actually a professional oil painter in real life, which is half what inspired me to make this character in the first place. Obviously a 'painting' takes a while. But I'm pretty convinced you can sketch (badly!) pretty much any vaguely complex picture in six seconds - say, a house and some trees, or an animal or a weapon etc. Especially if you'd spent your adventuring career specifically doing it.

Thanks so much for your detailed reply though! And ''Nolzur's Marvelous Pigments'' - I'm going to look that up right now!

[Mr. Crowbar]

Look up gesture drawings and line of action. Those may be all your character can get for a quick magic-sketch from which the spell emerges. She could also be doing something like 3D paint with magical light.

I'd ask for the artist materials to count as an arcane focus, and the mechanics of spellcasting don't really need to be changed.

I agree bard seems the most intuitive choice for this, and the Bard spell list has lots of Illusions to go with the painter theme. Traditional art can get really multidisciplinary so there's where Jack of All Trades fits in. Warlock might also be neat, something from spreading beauty in the world for their patron, or traded in their soul to overcome some nasty art block.

[Uncumber]

Look up gesture drawings and line of action. Those may be all your character can get for a quick magic-sketch from which the spell emerges. She could also be doing something like 3D paint with magical light.

I'd ask for the artist materials to count as an arcane focus, and the mechanics of spellcasting don't really need to be changed.

I agree bard seems the most intuitive choice for this, and the Bard spell list has lots of Illusions to go with the painter theme. Traditional art can get really multidisciplinary so there's where Jack of All Trades fits in. Warlock might also be neat, something from spreading beauty in the world for their patron, or traded in their soul to overcome some nasty art block.

Thanks for the reply! Aye I'm aware of those, and that's sort of what I'd be imagining doing in the round's time frame. I think that is reasonable!

I was going to ask if the materials would count as the arcane focus too, I'm 100% sure my DM would be fine with that as it doesn't change anything mechanically.

One issue with bard is that the class is written with ''who can hear you'' in its abilities - do you think it's reasonable to change that to ''who can see you'' instead, for my character?

Lastly, I am quite stuck on, well, conjuration vs illusion. Even if I do make a bard. I suppose the problem is definitely more on the philosophy of art, rather than D&D. Would this character use her art to create (conjuration) or appear to create (illusion)? After thinking about it more, I believe conjuration would actually fit more. In our world all art could be seen as an illusion, but if you're literally bringing your paintings to life - that seems like conjuration to me.

Or does it? *sigh*

very lastly - 'artist's block' you mentioned at the end! That's a great roleplay hook! Definitely going to remember that one.

[Prince Vine]

You might like the lore on Ixidor from the Onslaught book from Magic.

He was an illusionist who did paintings that would turn into three dimensional images, until he went crazy. Once he went crazy anything he made or visualized could be real.

He sculpted a turtle out of clay.
Shrimp from swirls of clay in water.
Giant crab monsters from throwing sand in the air.
Amorphous golems by looking at an empty field and smearing mud in his eyes.
Portals made out of his shadow.
An angel appeared out of a very vivid dream.
He painted a floating castle with Escher geometry into existance.

[Uncumber]

You might like the lore on Ixidor from the Onslaught book from Magic.

He was an illusionist who did paintings that would turn into three dimensional images, until he went crazy. Once he went crazy anything he made or visualized could be real.

He sculpted a turtle out of clay.
Shrimp from swirls of clay in water.
Giant crab monsters from throwing sand in the air.
Amorphous golems by looking at an empty field and smearing mud in his eyes.
Portals made out of his shadow.
An angel appeared out of a very vivid dream.
He painted a floating castle with Escher geometry into existance.

I'm a huge MtG player! But I only started playing at Return to Ravnica. I'm aware of Ixidor by name (and that he had some deal with illusions), but I had no idea about anything else. Thanks for the heads up! I'll do some research now!

[Keravath]

I'd second the choice of bard mostly due to the casting stat being charisma rather than intelligence.

My "understanding" is that wizards tend to be more analytical and knowledge based but I have the impression that this character would tend more towards using their force of will with the images on paper guiding or triggering the creation of the magic (i.e. focus their casting) rather than performing a stylized rendition of the desired magical effect and it being the image that releases the power.

As a result, I would tend to lean toward one of the charisma casters - bard, sorcerer, warlock. However, warlocks, in my opinion, don't really seem to me to have sufficient spell slots to support the kind of caster you are picturing - which would leave bard or sorcerer.

[Talionis]

I don’t like Bard for this character... Most Bard spells are not visually splashy or fancy. The effects of Bard spells just don’t cause a pop visually.

Wizards however have an enormous spelllist with plenty of very visual spells. Wizards also have spellbooks. Part of casting Wizards spells is having the spell prepared for the day which could be a painting process refluffed to be during your long rest time. So you’d pull out a picture you already prepared and you’d activate the picture.

[Uncumber]

I don’t like Bard for this character... Most Bard spells are not visually splashy or fancy. The effects of Bard spells just don’t cause a pop visually.

Wizards however have an enormous spelllist with plenty of very visual spells. Wizards also have spellbooks. Part of casting Wizards spells is having the spell prepared for the day which could be a painting process refluffed to be during your long rest time. So you’d pull out a picture you already prepared and you’d activate the picture.

I'm actually trying to compare the spell lists now, it's not that easy! Although it seems you're more or less right, wizards do have the 'flashy' spells. Having said that though, Bards do get an awful lot of illusion spells (though as I said above, I'm not convinced I want to go illusion). All in all.. hmm! Lots to think about!

Honestly I like the 'idea' of Bards more than Wizards. I mean, I'm not thinking my character would be particularly studious or well educated/learned. BUT what you've written about having a spellbook is so appealing - the way I'd see it, if my DM handed me a scroll, I could 'paint' it into a sketchbook, and use it as reference to paint a new image whenever I wanted to 'cast' it. Or something like that. I love the idea of a sketchbook being a spellbook.

Also, there is the sheer variety of Wizard spells. You're limited by (more or less) just your imagination. I could paint something subtle 'feather fall' - or I could paint 'Ice Storm'. That variety is really appealing. Having said that, Bards can learn a few spells from other classes!

It seems to me that I've got a choice between ''great flavor with some acceptable mechanics (Bard)'' or ''great mechanics with some acceptable flavor (Wizard).'' You can never have the best of both worlds!

--

edit: regarding Warlocks and Sorcerers - I did consider those - but honestly they didn't jump out at me. With Warlocks you get such poor spell variety, plus I wasn't keen on having a 'patron' - roleplay wise. Along with invocations and eldritch (or fae, fiend.. 'otherwordly') connotations, it just didn't click with me. Sorcerer seemed a little more fitting, but again, it was the spell variety I didn't like. After all - you can paint anything you can imagine, and you're more likely to paint a variety of different things than the same painting (spell) three times a day, or whatever. It just didn't seem as fitting as a Bard or Wizard. Although, I completely agree about the whole charisma vs intellect argument!

[Mercurias]

I'd play this as a Wild Magic Sorcerer all day every day. I like the idea of art being an imperfect medium through which to focus magic, and so it causes the occasional odd effect based on the paint, the mood of the artist, or the surface being painted on. I also love Wild Magic, and I feel like that encapsulates the chaotic, creative nature of art.

[MightyDuck]

I think a conjuration wizard would probably fit best since your idea seems anchored towards summoning things, just refluff your somatic components as painting and your material components as paint, you'll still need verbal components but you don't really have to Rp them. Also you can totally refluff your spellbook as either a sketch book or a book filled with different images and objects that inspire your art, go crazy with it as long as it doesn't change the game mechanically.

[MikeRoxTheBoat]

Whatever you decide, try to convince the DM to let you get your hands on Nolzur's Marvelous Pigments. It's a magical item that literally lets you paint things into reality.

Otherwise, I agree with Conjuration Wizard. You can even magically summon a paint brush. Your rituals could be you spending the time to draw effects in chalk. I wouldn't worry about the time it takes to draw things. If drawing is your main combat method, I assume basic effects you would learn to draw very quickly. Raise your dexterity a bit if you're in doubt. Just have your spellbook be a sketchbook, draw directly to there, and maybe rip out the page to send the effect flying.

For bigger effects, like summoning, nothing says you can't have something pre-drawn that comes to life once you rip out the page, or perhaps things don't come to life until you flick them with color.

You can also flavor certain spells however you want. Instead of just bog standard balls of energy for magic missiles, they could be magically drawn bees or will-o'-the-wisps or something that come to life and seek their target before exploding in a splash of magical color.

This is actually giving me ideas of my own, now.

[Vogie]

I'd do the Conjuration or Illusionist wizard with the Keen Mind feat, via Variant Human. If UA is allowed, used Lore Wizard instead (even if you nerf the 6th level feature)

Your "preparing" of spells at the beginning of the day is actually the creation of magical artwork, and your spellbook is now a document tube that contains all of the completed art. When you cast the spell, you're just throwing it into the world. Casting the art into the world as an action consumes it, while simply considering it (as a ritual) does not.

To make it not a huge drain on resources, I'd suggest you fluff that you use:

Shadow magic to make the art on illusions, that still hang around, even at low level, but only for that purpose.
Conjure Canvas via minor conjuration, also hangs around instead of instantly vanishing.

The pieces of art act physically like Scrolls, but not mechanically. No one else can use them as magic objects, as to them they'd just be art. If you make a scroll, you still follow the existing scroll creation rules. Any unused, non-ritual spells that you have prepared into art fade to dust over a long rest if you don't choose that spell.

Keen mind allows you to remember the previous pieces of art that you have produced in the past month... but if you don't recreate it within a month, you'll forget it.

If you don't want to have that connection, however, you could state that your spellbook is bifurcated:

You have a sketchbook that contains the notes on how to create the artspells, and
the prepared artspells, which hang out in the document tube.

[xroads]

As pure fluff, you could describe time as standing still when you paint a spell in the air. But I'd make it clear to your DM that there would be no mechanical benefits, and that you can only cast the spells as written in the book(s).

Personally, I like the idea of a wizard wielding a brush for a wand and using a sketchbook as a spellbook. I'd choose that over the bard.

As for other ideas, maybe play an evoker wizard? It's a subclass that tends to have more flashy spells than most of the others.

As mentioned earlier, warlock is a good choice. Maybe a warlock of the fae? Intent on spreading magic and beauty?

[Naanomi]

Something with the ability to get Fabricate seems important in the long run... so Wizard, Bard, or (modified) Forge Cleric?

[willdaBEAST]

For character inspiration Relm from Final Fantasy VI very much utilized this ability.
http://https://finalfantasy.fandom.com/wiki/Relm_Arrowny

As far as mechanical implementation, I wouldn't let real world physics limit you too much. It may take a normal person a long time to sketch or paint something, but your character is extraordinary.

[sophontteks]

Bard spells aren't flashy?
Bard spells don't go "boom" but I don't think thats what is trying to be accomplished. They are otherwise as flashy as spells can get.

Glamour bards make a good choice just for the fact that you can paint as a performance and doing so will create a super charm effect, turning those you watch into your raving fans.

Thr unique inspiration also gives you plenty of creative outlet. Paint a fabulous object that inspires your allies and practically stops your enemies in their tracks, as they are stunned by its beauty.

Playing a wizard will be awkward. You want to RP a fabulous painter that sucks at painting? Performance is charisma and wizards dont get expertise...

[Frozenstep]

A six second drawing would be pretty rough, but what if preparing your spells each day meant you drew 95% complete paintings of spells, and then when you want to cast them, finish the last 5%?

[Particle_Man]

Background could be performer but could also be guild artisan (painter).

Illusionist leaps out at me, personally, although I could see Conjurer too (especially with their trick of creating small items, although if you are patient illusionists get a better "create items" trick later on).

For race, I would see Elf, High (they are into the arts, and have magic in the blood - seems like a good combo) if you go wizard, or half-elf if you go Bard.

[Seekergeek]

I played an evoker wizard with this concept based off of Bob Ross. It was a blast (pardon the pun). A druid might also be fun as a sort of hippie painter who cartoonishly paints over himself to wild shape, etc.

If you are in need of a character rep, this is the one I used.
https://i.pinimg.com/564x/3e/ed/43/3eed438169056ff7c570011104b70231.jpg

[sophontteks]

Background could be performer but could also be guild artisan (painter).

Illusionist leaps out at me, personally, although I could see Conjurer too (especially with their trick of creating small items, although if you are patient illusionists get a better "create items" trick later on).

For race, I would see Elf, High (they are into the arts, and have magic in the blood - seems like a good combo) if you go wizard, or half-elf if you go Bard.

Background will allow him to paint, but to paint well he will need charisma, a hard sell on a wizard. To be amazing, he would want expertise.

[Man_Over_Game]

I gotta agree with most of the peeps here (against the OP) in that Illusionist really stands out the hardest.

Someone who paints, whether they paint combat spells or not, is likely someone who wants to avoid combat. They probably did not develop their painting skills in a gladiator arena. Illusion Wizards are the best Wizards at avoiding combat. Not only that, but they literally create pictures to distract and disorient their enemies.

They can even make those 3d pictures real, which is literally the power that you're describing with your character.

Don't forget that spellbooks do not actually have to be literal books. Scrolls with pictures on them (as with Sai from the Shippuden series) works perfectly. Or perhaps it's all in the ink that you prepare at night (which loses its potency once it draws what you're casting).

[Karnitis]

Between Bard and Wizard, I would choose Wizard.

I am not a painter, but I am friends with a few artists and many have spent years - most of their lives, childhood forward - practicing and perfecting their medium. I think that screams wizard (not to mention the stereotype of intellectuals being art snobs). Bards are usually typecast as 'I was insulting the orc and he just kinda died lolwut.' That isn't to say you couldn't play a studious bard, but my point is flavor-wise I think artists could be wizards or bards.

Valid point above is that art is performance - while that wouldn't affect spellcasting, RP-wise if you had to paint something it makes a difference. That said, having played a wizard, INT is your only *critical* stat. Sure, most prioritize DEX/CON, but if you want to put CHA as your #2 or 3, I don't think you would cripple your character. And a proper background could give you proficiency and settle you there too.

As for the mechanic of painting in one round, as long as you don't RP out-of-combat that you can make a masterpiece in 6 seconds, what harm does it do for flavor? Your DM shouldn't have a problem with it. Alternatively, as someone suggested above, if you said you've drawn 95% of it during a rest, then 6 seconds is enough for a quick stroke and burst of magic.

If you do go w/ Wizard, I'd for sure say conjuration. My idea is (sorry to weeb) Sai, from Naruto. His exact power was inking on scrolls to conjure beasts, birds, etc. and it seemed pretty cool. I think both schools are equally valid choices, but I think it makes your character seem more BA to be able to summon a beast or demon from your paintings rather than the *illusion* of one. Also, some illusions just don't work as well, such as - how do you paint Invisibility, or Hypnotic Pattern?

Finally, when I was reading your post...my actual thought was Druid! Making paint from nature, berries, feces, etc seems like a fun kooky thing to do. You could (as also suggested earlier) paint on yourself prior, so in battle the spells literally leap off your arm, neck, chest, etc. Plus, druids get a decent bit of conjuration. And the idea of pulling some 'goodberries' off certain parts of your body is...well, in a strictly immature way, hilarious.

[Karnitis]

Between Bard and Wizard, I would choose Wizard.

I am not a painter, but I am friends with a few artists and many have spent years - most of their lives, childhood forward - practicing and perfecting their medium. I think that screams wizard (not to mention the stereotype of intellectuals being art snobs). Bards are usually typecast as 'I was insulting the orc and he just kinda died lolwut.' That isn't to say you couldn't play a studious bard, but my point is flavor-wise I think artists could be wizards or bards.

Valid point above is that art is performance - while that wouldn't affect spellcasting, RP-wise if you had to paint something it makes a difference. That said, having played a wizard, INT is your only *critical* stat. Sure, most prioritize DEX/CON, but if you want to put CHA as your #2 or 3, I don't think you would cripple your character. And a proper background could give you proficiency and settle you there too.

As for the mechanic of painting in one round, as long as you don't RP out-of-combat that you can make a masterpiece in 6 seconds, what harm does it do for flavor? Your DM shouldn't have a problem with it. Alternatively, as someone suggested above, if you said you've drawn 95% of it during a rest, then 6 seconds is enough for a quick stroke and burst of magic.

If you do go w/ Wizard, I'd for sure say conjuration. My idea is (sorry to weeb) Sai, from Naruto. His exact power was inking on scrolls to conjure beasts, birds, etc. and it seemed pretty cool. I think both schools are equally valid choices, but I think it makes your character seem more BA to be able to summon a beast or demon from your paintings rather than the *illusion* of one. Also, some illusions just don't work as well, such as - how do you paint Invisibility, or Hypnotic Pattern?

Finally, when I was reading your post...my actual thought was Druid! Making paint from nature, berries, feces, etc seems like a fun kooky thing to do. You could (as also suggested earlier) paint on yourself prior, so in battle the spells literally leap off your arm, neck, chest, etc. Plus, druids get a decent bit of conjuration. And the idea of pulling some 'goodberries' off certain parts of your body is...well, in a strictly immature way, hilarious.

[ChildofLuthic]

I'd go illusionist - you start of by painting still images (minor illusion, silent image) that get more realistic (add sounds at level 2), can eventually move (major image), and eventually paint things that become real, only for a moment at first (with illusory self) but eventually for a minute at a time (illusory reality).

[Man_Over_Game]

Between Bard and Wizard, I would choose Wizard.

I am not a painter, but I am friends with a few artists and many have spent years - most of their lives, childhood forward - practicing and perfecting their medium. I think that screams wizard (not to mention the stereotype of intellectuals being art snobs). Bards are usually typecast as 'I was insulting the orc and he just kinda died lolwut.' That isn't to say you couldn't play a studious bard, but my point is flavor-wise I think artists could be wizards or bards.

Valid point above is that art is performance - while that wouldn't affect spellcasting, RP-wise if you had to paint something it makes a difference. That said, having played a wizard, INT is your only *critical* stat. Sure, most prioritize DEX/CON, but if you want to put CHA as your #2 or 3, I don't think you would cripple your character. And a proper background could give you proficiency and settle you there too.

As for the mechanic of painting in one round, as long as you don't RP out-of-combat that you can make a masterpiece in 6 seconds, what harm does it do for flavor? Your DM shouldn't have a problem with it. Alternatively, as someone suggested above, if you said you've drawn 95% of it during a rest, then 6 seconds is enough for a quick stroke and burst of magic.

If you do go w/ Wizard, I'd for sure say conjuration. My idea is (sorry to weeb) Sai, from Naruto. His exact power was inking on scrolls to conjure beasts, birds, etc. and it seemed pretty cool. I think both schools are equally valid choices, but I think it makes your character seem more BA to be able to summon a beast or demon from your paintings rather than the *illusion* of one. Also, some illusions just don't work as well, such as - how do you paint Invisibility, or Hypnotic Pattern?

Finally, when I was reading your post...my actual thought was Druid! Making paint from nature, berries, feces, etc seems like a fun kooky thing to do. You could (as also suggested earlier) paint on yourself prior, so in battle the spells literally leap off your arm, neck, chest, etc. Plus, druids get a decent bit of conjuration. And the idea of pulling some 'goodberries' off certain parts of your body is...well, in a strictly immature way, hilarious.

"And here, we have some happy trees. They look so happy among their dandelion friends. See how happy they are when they step on the orcs and flatten them into the dirt".

[Vogie]

Finally, when I was reading your post...my actual thought was Druid! Making paint from nature, berries, feces, etc seems like a fun kooky thing to do. You could (as also suggested earlier) paint on yourself prior, so in battle the spells literally leap off your arm, neck, chest, etc. Plus, druids get a decent bit of conjuration. And the idea of pulling some 'goodberries' off certain parts of your body is...well, in a strictly immature way, hilarious.

Tangentially related - I have a concept bouncing around in my head of an "Origami Mage" that is actually just a Druid, probably of the Moon. His Paper armor allows him to fold himself into creature shapes, and all of his summons are made of paper folded into shapes, and paper is a component is all other spells.

[MikeRoxTheBoat]

How is creating art performance? If anything it would be a skill check using painter's supplies, which would then use varied attributes depending on what was trying to be accomplished. Int and Dex both stand out to me far more than Cha would in that case.

[Uncumber]

Wow, OP here, so many replies! I've just checked back here after work and there's so many great ideas! Thanks all!

So firstly, I think I've decided to go for a Conjuration Wizard - simply because of how I imagine the flavor of the character. As I wrote somewhere above, the way I see it, in our world art is an illusion - but if a character is literally 'bringing their paintings to life', then I see that is more conjuration.

Having said that, I hadn't seen the Lore Wizard before. I've just looked it up and it seems really tempting! Being able to alter spells seems very painterly to me, and their capstone means you can paint literally any painting (spell) you can imagine. My question now is, what are peoples opinions on the College of Lore? Mechanically I mean? Do most DMs accept it? My DM is fairly open, but we don't want to be introducing any blatantly overpowered things.

Regarding the whole 'performance' of painting. Hmm that's a tough one, would painting really fall under the performance skill? I can see how it could, but as MikeRoxTheBoat wrote just below me, perhaps not? Looking at Xanathar's Guide to Everything, performance is not mentioned under Painter's Supplies (like it is under 'Musical Instruments' for example).

We do allow the UA feats in our games, so technically I could get expertise in performance (or any other skill) - but yeah.. is that necessary for being a great painter?

Talking about feats, Keen Mind is an amazing idea! I think it's a great way to show an artist's eye for trying to remember visual detail about stuff they've seen around.

Lastly, uh, I like the idea of a Druid painter! ... but not for me. I'm just not so much of a nature-y person!

[GlenSmash!]

How is creating art performance? If anything it would be a skill check using painter's supplies, which would then use varied attributes depending on what was trying to be accomplished. Int and Dex both stand out to me far more than Cha would in that case.

I'm with you. Very few painters painted live in front of people.

[Vogie]

Having said that, I hadn't seen the College of Lore before. I've just looked it up and it seems really tempting! Being able to alter spells seems very painterly to me, and their capstone means you can paint literally any painting (spell) you can imagine. My question now is, what are peoples opinions on the College of Lore? Mechanically I mean? Do most DMs accept it? My DM is fairly open, but we don't want to be introducing any blatantly overpowered things

It is considered overpowered. However, if you nerf the 6th level ability, it comes in line very quickly.

Some ideas that you could use as a replacement 6th level ability:

Once per short rest you can create an expanded Glyph of Warding-like spell that doesn't have the 10-foot-from-creation-location rider, and you can cast it for a 3rd-level spell without spending a spell slot once per rest - basically, being able to take an hour and paint a spell that will go off by itself.
Just straight-up copy the "Channel Divinity: Read Thoughts" feature from the Knowledge Cleric 1/short or long rest - Reading people as well as you can read lore.
You can copy and cast Ritual spells with half the amount of time. You also can choose 2 rituals from any class, and learn rituals of any class, instead of just wizard ones (basically, the Book of Shadows invocation)

[Talionis]

Wow, OP here, so many replies! I've just checked back here after work and there's so many great ideas! Thanks all!

So firstly, I think I've decided to go for a Conjuration Wizard - simply because of how I imagine the flavor of the character. As I wrote somewhere above, the way I see it, in our world art is an illusion - but if a character is literally 'bringing their paintings to life', then I see that is more conjuration.

Having said that, I hadn't seen the Lore Wizard before. I've just looked it up and it seems really tempting! Being able to alter spells seems very painterly to me, and their capstone means you can paint literally any painting (spell) you can imagine. My question now is, what are peoples opinions on the College of Lore? Mechanically I mean? Do most DMs accept it? My DM is fairly open, but we don't want to be introducing any blatantly overpowered things.

Regarding the whole 'performance' of painting. Hmm that's a tough one, would painting really fall under the performance skill? I can see how it could, but as MikeRoxTheBoat wrote just below me, perhaps not? Looking at Xanathar's Guide to Everything, performance is not mentioned under Painter's Supplies (like it is under 'Musical Instruments' for example).

We do allow the UA feats in our games, so technically I could get expertise in performance (or any other skill) - but yeah.. is that necessary for being a great painter?

Talking about feats, Keen Mind is an amazing idea! I think it's a great way to show an artist's eye for trying to remember visual detail about stuff they've seen around.

Lastly, uh, I like the idea of a Druid painter! ... but not for me. I'm just not so much of a nature-y person!

I think you made a good choice for how you described your vision of the character in a Conjuration Wizard.

I think instead of performance you may want proficiency with tools Painting Kit. I am not sure if there is one listed in any official products and I am away from books, but this is the way I think 5E would handle what you are doing.

[Magic_Hat]

Distort reality/gravity like an M.C. Escher painting
Distort anatomy like a Picasso painting
Distort the atmosphere like an Impressionist painting
Distort molecular bonds like a Pointillism painting

[Man_Over_Game]

It is considered overpowered. However, if you nerf the 6th level ability, it comes in line very quickly.

Some ideas that you could use as a replacement 6th level ability:

Once per short rest you can create an expanded Glyph of Warding-like spell that doesn't have the 10-foot-from-creation-location rider, and you can cast it for a 3rd-level spell without spending a spell slot once per rest - basically, being able to take an hour and paint a spell that will go off by itself.
Just straight-up copy the "Channel Divinity: Read Thoughts" feature from the Knowledge Cleric 1/short or long rest - Reading people as well as you can read lore.
You can copy and cast Ritual spells with half the amount of time. You also can choose 2 rituals from any class, and learn rituals of any class, instead of just wizard ones (basically, the Book of Shadows invocation)


Just a heads up to everyone, College of Lore is the Bard Subclass. School of Lore is the Wizard subclass in Unearthed Arcana.

[Uncumber]

Just a heads up to everyone, College of Lore is the Bard Subclass. School of Lore is the Wizard subclass in Unearthed Arcana.

Yeah I stupidly wrote 'College of Lore' where I meant 'Lore Wizard' - I did edit it, but it was a while after I wrote the post. Thanks for pointing that out to people!