Optimization Character Concepts you wished would work in D&D? [Archive]

EggKookoo

2020-03-27, 06:23 AM

For me it maybe the possibility for a character who enters into a pact to get out of it over the course of the story. I feel D&D is just not made for such arcs. A Warlock multiclassing out of Warlock comes close to some degree - but they still have the pact and nothing in game is really prepared to deal with that.

You don't even have to multiclass. You can easily flavor a warlock as having escaped the control of their patron, and their increase in power (as they gain warlock levels) is essentially a side effect of their initial pact. You could even flavor enemies to be agents of the patron, hunting down the apostate. That's exactly how my brother ran his.

Regarding your original question, it depends on how hard you're willing to fluff, and how much you're willing to let slide for game balance. For example, you could have a "no magic" healer by describing your cleric's healing magic as based on medical tools, specialized equipment, first aid kits, and so forth. You have to be willing to explain how "non magic" means can be affected by things like antimagical fields, though. But perhaps magic is less of a strict concept in that setting and really just refers to any reasonably sophisticated tech? I guess the setting would inform that to a large degree.

I find it hard to really get trapped if I'm willing to revisualize how features and classes appear in the game.

MoiMagnus

2020-03-27, 06:36 AM

Contrast

2020-03-27, 06:59 AM

1) A magical equivalent of Barbarian's rage. A lot of characters in fictions have those moments where they "enter into a trance" or "get possessed by a legendary spirit" where they get OP magical powers for some limited time. To be fair, that's already possible with a level 20 paladin, or some high level sorcerer, but that's kind of late...

I'm not quite sure why the barbarian doesn't count here. Ancestral barbarian seems entirely founded on the idea of your ancestral spirits aiding you - it would be pretty easy to have their trance be being possessed by a legendary spirit but any barbarian could fluff their rage that way.

Action surge also seems like something that could reflect this and Samurai in particular has abilities that would work for this.

Empty body from monk as well though as you say that does come online very late but monk with their Ki abilities kinda seem on point for this idea anyway.

Edit - ooh right I get what you mean now, overwhelming magic power specifically. Ignore me :D /edit

2) Character classes defined by an artefact. In fiction, an absurd number of characters get their power from a magical sword / ring / whatever. The easiest way to include it would be to make a warlock patron for it. [In fact, I'm sure there are plenty of community-made warlock patron that do exactly that]

A number of warlock patron things are associated with artefacts that would be pretty easy to reverse the fluff around. Also you don't need rules to support this necessarily - you could literally fluff any class as having gain their abilities from exposure to an artefact without too much difficulty. If anything this is actually helpful in explaining why the PCs seem to get so much stronger so fast and helps explain why your 200 year old dwarf suddenly went from level 1 to level 10 over the course of a single year.

3) "Pokemon trainer". Well, not specifically with pokemon, but 5e doesn't have an equivalent of the 3.X animal companion stronger than its master.

I actually saw someone talking about a fun idea the other day for a faerie PC who piloted a giant mech suit (warforged warlock with Pact of the Chain).

Benny89

2020-03-27, 07:06 AM

1) Dexterity Barbarian - I really would like that... so many cool characters...

2) Wisdom - based Fighter (not monk) half-caster class, something like Hexblade is for CHA and Artificer is for INT

3) Psionic

EggKookoo

2020-03-27, 07:09 AM

I actually saw someone talking about a fun idea the other day for a faerie PC who piloted a giant mech suit (warforged warlock with Pact of the Chain).

You could also leverage the sidekick system there. Your trainer is the sidekick, with the pocket monster rolled up using a PC race/class that makes sense and can be fluffed as needed. When a fight happens, your trainer summons the monster PC, who does the bulk of the fighting. If your trainer is an expert, it can even use its bonus action to help the monster. When the fight ends, the monster goes back in the trainer's pocket.

It has roleplaying implications (the monster isn't visibly present unless summoned) and you have to assume that the pocket monster is always present from a mechanical point of view -- e.g. there's no action to summon it, it's just there when needed. And maybe a few other bits and pieces to work around. But it should work.

Mimersbrønd

2020-03-27, 08:15 AM

Catullus64

2020-03-27, 08:23 AM

I miss the partial-caster bard from 3e. Sure, it wasn't terribly strong unless you got real deep into the weeds of some munchkinry, but I feel like it expressed a subtly different character than the modern class does. The 5e bard tends to suggest "mage who draws his power from music and performance", whereas the earlier bard felt more like "magical musician who has also picked up bits of magic, combat skills, and other stuff through his travels." I find the second type to be a more interesting option

Waazraath

2020-03-27, 08:33 AM

- shapeshifter, without further spellcasting. Something like Warshaper or Master of Many Forms from 3.5 (edit: or like the above mentioned Bear Warrior, indeed)
- truenamer; a pretty standard fantasy concept (at least from the Earthsea novel on), which was terribly implemented in 3.x, but is cool. Would require a different (extra) casting system though.
- in the same line: pact magic (as in, 3.5). Very interesting, mechaniccaly also very nice and versatile, with a specific, (dark) RP flavor. Would have loved to see it in 5e.
- grappler / martial artist. This one is served poorly in 5e, especially since one of the classes that should be best in it concerning flavor (monk) is actually terrible in it, cause it works on strength and skill (athletics) and monks lack expertise and the means to get advantage there. Also the grapple mechanics as they are now are very basic in line with 5e, but not enough to make a character concept focused on it work.

EggKookoo

2020-03-27, 08:36 AM

I miss the barbarian wildshaper (with no spells).

Was my first character in 3.5, the prestige class called "Bear Warrior". Where, when you enter your rage, you transform into an animal.

Like Beorn from The Hobbit.

The closet we got is the UA "Path of the Beast", which I am really hoping is gonna be official in one form or another in the future, as I want it so much! :D

I've been playing with the idea of making a barbarian shifter (from Eberron). Both rage and shift are treated normally, but if he does both at the same time, he transforms into a humanoid animal beast. Mechanically no change, just visualization.

loki_ragnarock

2020-03-27, 08:37 AM

JonBeowulf

2020-03-27, 09:13 AM

Wasp

2020-03-27, 09:45 AM

I'm still disappointed there isn't some kind of knife thrower. It's cool in concept but there's no way to do it without a fair amount of house-ruling. Even then you'll be less effective than pretty much ANYBODY using a short bow.

That reminds me: I would REALLY love to play a character that uses a blade in the main hand and a pistol/crossbow in the off-hand. I had high hopes for the Battle-Smith for that, but it's better to be fully melee or fully ranged it seems in D&D...

47Ace

2020-03-27, 09:56 AM

Hi everyone!
I feel D&D is just not made for such arcs. A Warlock multiclassing out of Warlock comes close to some degree - but they still have the pact and nothing in game is really prepared to deal with that.

One crude way to do that with only a little homebrew would to start by muliclassing out of warlock and then retrain away you warlock levels as your story arc proceeded.

loki_ragnarock

2020-03-27, 10:27 AM

I'm still disappointed there isn't some kind of knife thrower. It's cool in concept but there's no way to do it without a fair amount of house-ruling. Even then you'll be less effective than pretty much ANYBODY using a short bow.
Warning: This Reply Got Very Stream of Consciousness

I vaguely remember there was an AD&D combination of rulings that made dart throwing produce a gonzo number of attacks, which inspires me to say:

Refluff darts as throwing knives? It'll at least be compatible with sharpshooter and the archery fighting style? Dagger in the off hand, dart in the main. Throw dart, interact with object, for a new dart, throw dart... for three darts every 2 rounds, but with room for opportunity attacks since you have a dagger in your off hand, leaving you room for some additional off turn damage. The only real weakness there is not playing very nice with multi-attack...
It has some switch hitter potential, which makes it niche, but the Sharpshooter/Sentinel combo is pretty shockingly under-represented. So it would look something like this; maybe a swashbuckling rogue, she attacks the squishy target 60ft away, moves next to the other target she needs to keep on lockdown, nails the lockdown target off-turn if they move or attack someone else for a potential 2/round sneak attack, pops uncanny dodge if they do target her and hit.

If the engagement is at genuinely at range, nothing to stop her from using a bow with reasonable effectiveness. If the engagement is in close quarters, she has a couple of options for controlling the flow of combat that her bow bound companion lacks.

It's certainly not an obvious dpr win, but it's viable in a *highly* niche way.

In fact, she doesn't even need dexterity when using darts, since they are the only ranged weapon with the finesse tag. Huh. There might be something to exploit, there, if she wanted to add some heavy armor/archery fighter into the mix... toss on a barbarian level for some strength based at will advantage for her melee side. Though going that route would make her less capable of picking up that bow for genuinely ranged engagements, it would make her more of a presence in the mixed range/close range engagements that make up more typical play. I think I'd personally stick with the first draft; more options, less delayed sneak attack damage, less delayed ASI, etc.
Actually, looking at it... darts are also the only ranged weapon she can use for melee attacks without being reduced to an improvised weapon, as they uniquely lack the ammunition property. Which means that she doesn't even have to hold a dagger in her off hand after all? I think I’ve accidentally found myself in one of those rule rabbit holes that someone resolved a long time ago… but it looks like she could just use darts all around, for the opportunity attack to control the space and the ranged attacks. The language of the opportunity attack rules indicate that’s perfectly viable, the lack of the ammunition tag gives the freedom...

So, yeah, re-fluff darts as throwing knives. Control the battlefield and attack the squishies at the same time.
Can’t do that with a shortbow!
Again, it's not a dpr win. But that's not every victory.

Sorinth

2020-03-27, 12:48 PM

I'm still disappointed there isn't some kind of knife thrower. It's cool in concept but there's no way to do it without a fair amount of house-ruling. Even then you'll be less effective than pretty much ANYBODY using a short bow.

Wouldn't Sun Soul monk accomplish this, either flavour the Sun Bolts to look like knives when you throw them, or ask the DM to simply use the mechanics but use actual throwing knives. It should be allowed since it's straight up worse due to damage type and possibility of running out of knives.

KOLE

2020-03-27, 01:05 PM

That reminds me: I would REALLY love to play a character that uses a blade in the main hand and a pistol/crossbow in the off-hand. I had high hopes for the Battle-Smith for that, but it's better to be fully melee or fully ranged it seems in D&D...

I've played this before! My DM allowed me to use a bonus action to reload the flintlock (refluffed hand Crossbow) as a Swashbuckler. I had to take Crossbow Expert, and it certainly wasn't perfect, but I could leap in, Rapier attack, "Flintlock" bonus action attack, use fancy footwork to get out of engagement, next turn reload and Rapier attack, rinse and repeat. It's fairly balanced. But requires DM buy in.

As for me, it's difficult, but not impossible, to have a Hoplite styled fighter. IMO, a Hopite HAS to have a Breastplate; wearing heavy armor really ruins the aesthetic, not to mention the disadvantage on stealth sucks. You can pull it off going full fighter by min maxing Strength, (16 for spear), 14 Dex (for breastplate) plus MINIMUM 14 con (because you're a front line fighter), but then all your mental stats are low and you're vulnerable to anything requiring a mental save. It's not ideal. If you have a lenient DM you can get a refluffed Rapier as a spear, but it's not the same, and it cuts off PAM.

Justin Sane

2020-03-27, 01:11 PM

Nightcrawler. Short hops around the battlefield to catch unprepared foes.

One that doesn't work in 5E is the 4E Swordmage. Lightly armored tank, uses magical wards to protect his allies.

KOLE

2020-03-27, 01:12 PM

Nightcrawler. Short hops around the battlefield to catch unprepared foes.

Shadow Monk?

micahaphone

2020-03-27, 01:42 PM

Nightcrawler. Short hops around the battlefield to catch unprepared foes.

horizon walker ranger? My friend loves teleporting around to attack.

One that doesn't work in 5E is the 4E Swordmage. Lightly armored tank, uses magical wards to protect his allies.

I haven't played much 4E, but can a buff/support cleric or paladin do this, like the redemption paladin?

JNAProductions

2020-03-27, 02:22 PM

1) Dexterity Barbarian - I really would like that... so many cool characters...

It works fine. Doesn't have the sheer damage a Strength Barbarian has, but has better AC.

- shapeshifter, without further spellcasting. Something like Warshaper or Master of Many Forms from 3.5 (edit: or like the above mentioned Bear Warrior, indeed)
- grappler / martial artist. This one is served poorly in 5e, especially since one of the classes that should be best in it concerning flavor (monk) is actually terrible in it, cause it works on strength and skill (athletics) and monks lack expertise and the means to get advantage there. Also the grapple mechanics as they are now are very basic in line with 5e, but not enough to make a character concept focused on it work.

I did a Shapeshifter (https://forums.giantitp.com/showthread.php?599959-Shapeshifter-Class) as a third-caster, so somewhat close to that? And an Enforcer (https://forums.giantitp.com/showthread.php?566793-Enforcer-A-Strongman-s-Rogue), which grapples real good.

Zetakya

2020-03-27, 02:26 PM

I had a concept for a Dwarven Engineer in 3.5e that I never got to play there and just doesn't work in 5e.

And no, Artificier just isn't the same.

8wGremlin

2020-03-27, 02:51 PM

A summoner who works from level 1
(the new UA spells will help, and druid is also good at this, but something that doesn't have wildshape, would be good.)

I'm using the Wildfire Druid as an attempt at this.

Joe the Rat

2020-03-27, 02:51 PM

No-casting wildshape in any form. Class ability, race ability, feat... nada. Heck, no druid shapechanging. Harry Potter-esque Animagery shouldn't require two levels of druid. Bear warrior would be great, as it puts you into the situation where you have to decide which version of bear barbearian Sir Bearington should be.

One hour single form CR 1/4 shapechange per rest as a feat has long been on my list of things to test.

Throwers could use some love.

Most of the rest work with fluff tweaks. Not necessarily perfectly, but with a little love and tweaking.

Man_Over_Game

2020-03-27, 03:02 PM

1) Dexterity Barbarian - I really would like that... so many cool characters...
You can make a Strength-based Monk/Barbarian hybrid work well with Ancestral Guardian and Drunken Master, but there's not an equivalent for Dexterity that I've found.

I made an option for Barbarians to use Dexterity from the start, replacing the word Strength with the word Dexterity in all of the Barbarian features. The catch? At least 50% of your levels have to be Barbarian, AND the only Barbarian subclass you can pick is the Berserker.

Sounds frustrating, except when you consider that you're a tank that shoots almost as hard as he melees, with a massive AC. It becomes a surprisingly versatile combatant, and can multiclass in a lot of new ways. In terms of thematics, it's about using adrenaline for a Haste-like effect instead of raw Strength and Rage.

What I feel is missing:
1) A magical equivalent of Barbarian's rage. A lot of characters in fictions have those moments where they "enter into a trance" or "get possessed by a legendary spirit" where they get OP magical powers for some limited time. To be fair, that's already possible with a level 20 paladin, or some high level sorcerer, but that's kind of late...
Is there a reason why Bladesinger or the Storm Herald Barbarian doesn't fit?

2) Wisdom - based Fighter (not monk) half-caster class, something like Hexblade is for CHA and Artificer is for INT
Erm, do you mean a Ranger? You could pick up Shillelagh pretty dang easily and just max out Wisdom and be pretty darn effective. Heck, I'd give it to a Ranger for losing one of his known Ranger spells.

I'm still disappointed there isn't some kind of knife thrower. It's cool in concept but there's no way to do it without a fair amount of house-ruling. Even then you'll be less effective than pretty much ANYBODY using a short bow.

Surprisingly enough, Rogues make excellent knife-throwers. You don't need to spam a bunch. You just start the fight with one in hand, drawing a new knife as you throw one each turn until you miss. Has the benefit of not needing a feat, like Crossbow Expert builds do.
For Rogues, it basically becomes "Once per encounter, reroll a failed attack". Which is almost identical to your capstone, btw.
Double this with the Scout, and now you don't need to spend your Bonus Action to flee. You're always out of reach to be pinned.

Renvir

2020-03-27, 03:10 PM

That reminds me: I would REALLY love to play a character that uses a blade in the main hand and a pistol/crossbow in the off-hand. I had high hopes for the Battle-Smith for that, but it's better to be fully melee or fully ranged it seems in D&D...

Why couldn't you pull this off with the Battle Smith? You get to use INT for attacks made with magical weapons starting at 3rd level so your modifiers will be the same for the blade and the hand crossbow. You can infuse the blade for +1 to hit and damage, and infuse the hand crossbow for +1 to hit and damage as well as reloading itself. At 5th level you get extra attack so there's nothing stopping you from using blade and hand crossbow in the same turn. With Crossbow Expert you'd even be able to shoot again using your bonus action (or command your Steel Defender if you don't want to fire). I'd personally skip Crossbow Expert and snag Mobile for this build. Move up, stab, back away, fire, bonus action tell your Steel Defender to bite or grapple.

MrStabby

2020-03-27, 03:36 PM

Man_Over_Game

2020-03-27, 03:43 PM

KOLE

2020-03-27, 04:01 PM

Waazraath

2020-03-27, 04:05 PM

It works fine. Doesn't have the sheer damage a Strength Barbarian has, but has better AC.

I did a Shapeshifter (https://forums.giantitp.com/showthread.php?599959-Shapeshifter-Class) as a third-caster, so somewhat close to that? And an Enforcer (https://forums.giantitp.com/showthread.php?566793-Enforcer-A-Strongman-s-Rogue), which grapples real good.

Yeah, something like these indeed! Nice homebrews (but I hope there'll be official support for these concepts as well! Else it's really DM dependent if one can use them).

MrStabby

2020-03-27, 04:29 PM

I would like a bit more support for the idea of a warrior who defeats enemies by knowing more about them. Ranger touches on it with favoured enemy, but looking for more scholarly pursuits- getting to make skill checks to identify weaknesses. Someone who knows just where to hit a clay golem to crack it open or exactly which bits of a mummy are most flammable.

Of course it's easy to homebrew something, as indeed I have, but it would be nice to have an official version.

Monster Slayer Ranger? Inquisitive Rogue? Battlemaster Fighter?

What about those doesn't fit the bill? Would Multiclassing work?

So the focus should be Int not wisdom, hence why I ruled out ranger.

Ranger uses wisdom rather than int. Does not come across as a scholar at all. Now of course you could still prioritise Int over wisdom, but that isnt the concept being supported - it is bending the system to produce an underwhelming character.

Inquisitive rogue is the right kind of thing... but again based on observation rather than book learning. If you could get inquisitive with skill uses of medicine (using int) or arcana or whatever to do it's thing then it would be a good fit... but the class doesnt.

Battlemaster fighter's mechanical abilities do not distinguish between a high or a low int. Doesn't distinguish between being proficient in any kind of knowledge skill or not. I am not really seeing this support the concept.

I am not saying you can't do this - I am saying it isn't supported. I am saying there really isn't anything out there that helps you do this. I was honestly hoping that some of the recent alternative class features for the ranger were going to add some Int based skill checks for use in combat to take advantage of the favoured enemy.

Battlemaster fighter

Misterwhisper

2020-03-27, 04:31 PM

An actual arcane archer that fires their spells through their arrows, not the insult of one we have now that does not even have real casting.

A rogue that is thug like and can use non-finesse weapons.

Heavy armored barbarian subclass.

Duelist subclass for fighter, although battlemaster is close.

A straight up elemental focused Druid with elemental alternatives to wild shape. Less nature more primordial.

Non-caster warlocks.

Paladin archers.

Most ranger issues were solved in the alternate class features UA.

Dedicated zen archer monk.

Necromancy powered sorcerer. Can get a few permanent undead servants.

Wizard is fine as is.

Man_Over_Game

2020-03-27, 04:35 PM

So the focus should be Int not wisdom, hence why I ruled out ranger.

Ranger uses wisdom rather than int. Does not come across as a scholar at all. Now of course you could still prioritise Int over wisdom, but that isnt the concept being supported - it is bending the system to produce an underwhelming character.

I don't think too many DMs would complain about a Ranger using Intelligence instead of Wisdom. Heck, most of the Ranger features revolve around knowledge more than observation, as do several of the subclasses (Horizon Walker, Monster Slayer).

If that's something that interests you, and you want to rule out any multiclassing problems that might come up, the Prestige Options link in my signature covers these ideas and concerns surrounding them. Pretty thoroughly, I'd like to think.

A rogue that is thug like and can use non-finesse weapons.
It has that, too. Didn't take much.
Change Sneak Attack to be limited to melee weapons instead of Finesse/Ranged, gives Medium Armor and Martial weapons, change all mentions of the word Dexterity to Constitution (so you're bulky, making you resistant to poison and being tossed around instead of dodging explosions. A Sailor, not a Ninja). Sneak Attack bumped to a 1d8, but still requires Advantage or an adjacent ally. You still pick your subclass as normal.

Although, on the Arcane Archer mention, I feel like that could easily be done with Ranger and a few Druid levels. Land->Coast for 3 levels with a Ranger character goes a long way.

MrStabby

2020-03-27, 04:48 PM

I would like a bit more support for the idea of a warrior who defeats enemies by knowing more about them. Ranger touches on it with favoured enemy, but looking for more scholarly pursuits- getting to make skill checks to identify weaknesses. Someone who knows just where to hit a clay golem to crack it open or exactly which bits of a mummy are most flammable.

Of course it's easy to homebrew something, as indeed I have, but it would be nice to have an official version.

I don't think too many DMs would complain about a Ranger using Intelligence instead of Wisdom. Heck, most of the Ranger features revolve around knowledge more than observation, as do several of the subclasses (Horizon Walker, Monster Slayer).

If that's something that interests you, and you want to rule out any multiclassing problems that might come up, the Prestige Options link in my signature covers these ideas and concerns surrounding them. Pretty thoroughly, I'd like to think.

It has that, too. Didn't take much.
Change Sneak Attack to be limited to melee weapons instead of Finesse/Ranged, gives Medium Armor and Martial weapons, change all mentions of the word Dexterity to Constitution (so you're bulky, making you resistant to poison and being tossed around instead of dodging explosions). Sneak Attack bumped to a 1d8, but still requires Advantage or an adjacent ally. You still pick your subclass as normal.

Although, on the Arcane Archer mention, I feel like that could easily be done with Ranger and a few Druid levels. Land->Coast for 3 levels with a Ranger character goes a long way.

Yeah, as I said, homebrewing something wasn't a problem - but you can't always take your own homebrew to any table you want to play at.

KOLE

2020-03-27, 04:52 PM

Yeah, as I said, homebrewing something wasn't a problem - but you can't always take your own homebrew to any table you want to play at.

Okay- I totally get it, me and MOG were coming at this from the angle of giving what we see as valid options with refluff/minor 'brew. Two totally different thoughts, my bad. Have you looked at Blood Hunter? It's BASICALLY official, included in D&D Beyond. It's an Intelligence based half-caster that uses knowledge about its prey to defeat them. It feels like what you're looking for, but I'm only just trying to offer helpful suggestions.

ShinyRocks

2020-03-27, 05:01 PM

I've played this before! My DM allowed me to use a bonus action to reload the flintlock (refluffed hand Crossbow) as a Swashbuckler. I had to take Crossbow Expert, and it certainly wasn't perfect, but I could leap in, Rapier attack, "Flintlock" bonus action attack, use fancy footwork to get out of engagement, next turn reload and Rapier attack, rinse and repeat. It's fairly balanced. But requires DM buy in.

I almost got to play this. I was the Monster Hunter Fighter from UA with a rapier and a pistol, and the Gunslinger feat from UA (Crossbow Expert, except with pistols) (the world was fairly steampunky). Worked out with my DM that I had a revolver so only had to reload every so often. He even let me have a nightstick for a blunt finesse weapon. I was going to tinker with the pistol and upgrade it as we levelled up, so it started at just 1d6 but would gradually improve. I rolled crazy good stats for her, and she was going to be so much fun.

But the DM for that campaign realised after one session that he *hated* DMing - even after he'd come up with this entire world that sounded really cool, and seemed super fun to play in - so she's benched, maybe forever.

But the melee/pistol or crossbow idea is something I'd definitely love to play.

There's an idea in my head about an assassin type who works by charming their way into places and working with disguises. Think the woman who flirts her way into a party and dances with her target before jabbing him with a poison hairpin. It's some sort of Rogue/Monk combo (I definitely don't see them wearing armour), and I want them to use darts, because easily concealed, but it's super MAD, and I can't piece together the exact requirements.

Man_Over_Game

2020-03-27, 05:04 PM

There's an idea in my head about an assassin type who works by charming their way into places and working with disguises. Think the woman who flirts her way into a party and dances with her target before jabbing him with a poison hairpin. It's some sort of Rogue/Monk combo (I definitely don't see them wearing armour), and I want them to use darts, because easily concealed, but it's super MAD, and I can't piece together the exact requirements.

The sad part is, you're literally describing the Assassin Rogue. All of the features are oriented towards the exact concept that you're describing. That is, there's not a single feature that doesn't contribute to what you're describing.

Amechra

2020-03-27, 05:13 PM

T.G. Oskar

2020-03-27, 05:45 PM

It's strange not to hear "we need the Warlord/Marshal" in here. PDK is just such a sorry attempt to make it, and WotC has just pretty much forgotten about it - since you depend on activating your own abilities to use the improvements, timing becomes essential. It's entirely possible to do it, IMO.

I'd say Beastmaster, but much like the Ranger, there's a way to work with what's there - and WotC is making attempts to improve the concept, so it's mostly hoping that everything works.

What I feel is missing:
1) A magical equivalent of Barbarian's rage. A lot of characters in fictions have those moments where they "enter into a trance" or "get possessed by a legendary spirit" where they get OP magical powers for some limited time. To be fair, that's already possible with a level 20 paladin, or some high level sorcerer, but that's kind of late...

So, something like PF's Bloodrager or the Rage Mage's Spell Rage? Then again, neither of those get too OP, and what it really does is boost numbers rather than granting new powers. But it could be done - basically a Sorcerous Origin that allows entering into that trance, or a partial-caster Barbarian Path.

2) Character classes defined by an artefact. In fiction, an absurd number of characters get their power from a magical sword / ring / whatever. The easiest way to include it would be to make a warlock patron for it. [In fact, I'm sure there are plenty of community-made warlock patron that do exactly that]

To be fair, the Hexblade is pretty much that, but to truly make it so, you'd have to reintroduce 3.5's Weapons (and Items) of Legacy. Combine the Hexblade patron, the Pact of the Blade (or Pact of the Talisman, if it appears in a future splat) with a trinket/special item. Once you enter Hexblade, the item's power "unlocks", and as you gain levels and do the right rituals, the item becomes more and more powerful, until it reveals that it's actually an artifact (once depowered, but now repowered) and was using the character to recover. That way, you end up with a character that has an Artifact that defines its power.

- shapeshifter, without further spellcasting. Something like Warshaper or Master of Many Forms from 3.5 (edit: or like the above mentioned Bear Warrior, indeed)

Considering how the PF Shifter ended (fully focused on Wildshaping, but...had its issues), it's better to limit this to a subclass. The Barbarian's getting Path of the Beast, though, which should scratch your itch for it - while you don't truly transform, you still get some of the stuff of the Warshaper in principle, like the new natural attacks. You just don't get something like the Druid's A Thousand Faces.

I could also see it as a Roguish Archetype. The Assassin has some skill at disguises, but it's not true transformation. I could see it as something a la 3.5's Cabinet Trickster - while specific only to Changelings, it gave them the shapeshifting capabilities of a Doppleganger, plus some cool psionic tricks. Permanent Detect Thoughts was the killer app here, though, since it flowed so naturally into Mindspy (think someone who weaponizes Detect Thoughts).

- in the same line: pact magic (as in, 3.5). Very interesting, mechaniccaly also very nice and versatile, with a specific, (dark) RP flavor. Would have loved to see it in 5e.

I...dunno if it'd work. The thing about 5e is to keep it simple, and Pact Magic was incredibly complicated - you had Vestiges you could bind into, and they gave you supernatural powers that recharged after a few turns. You could change your build almost every day, but you needed a solid grasp of the class and what it offered to make the right choices (particularly when you could have more than one bound vestige at once). I'll concur that it was a very cool system, one that had its uses (semi-infinite Summon Monster spells with the caveat of having a template tacked in? Who cares, it's infinite summons!), but it could get kinda complicated.

A summoner who works from level 1
(the new UA spells will help, and druid is also good at this, but something that doesn't have wildshape, would be good.)

I concur. The new spells are helping the summoner concept a lot, but I still consider that a proper summoner archetype is near-to-impossible to duplicate in 5e. I successfully used a summoned creature in the last battle of the last campaign I was playing, and it was super fun (and even if it's CR 4, a Couatl is just so darn potent!), but having that at the expense of life-saving buffs and taking one minute to conjure kills the fun.

ShinyRocks

2020-03-27, 05:52 PM

The sad part is, you're literally describing the Assassin Rogue. All of the features are oriented towards the exact concept that you're describing. That is, there's not a single feature that doesn't contribute to what you're describing.

I think the trouble is that Infiltration Expertise and Impostor come so (comparatively) late, and when I think up character concepts, I think of 'this is what they were already doing'. I don't think most campaigns would have room for a sneaky femme fatale that goes in and murders people once everyone is at level 13. They'll be fighting kingdom-destroying monsters by then. And if they're all at level one, she doesn't have any of those things that make the concept shine.

Man_Over_Game

2020-03-27, 07:02 PM

I think the trouble is that Infiltration Expertise and Impostor come so (comparatively) late, and when I think up character concepts, I think of 'this is what they were already doing'. I don't think most campaigns would have room for a sneaky femme fatale that goes in and murders people once everyone is at level 13. They'll be fighting kingdom-destroying monsters by then. And if they're all at level one, she doesn't have any of those things that make the concept shine.

I agree.

There's an unfortunate consequence to adding mechanics, which is that it implies the mechanic can't be done without that feature. Take all of the feats and all of the class features, and basically say "without this investment, you cannot do this". Otherwise, what's the point of the investment? Do you need to be an Assassin to use the Assassin features, or do the Assassin features give you permission to do things that anyone else could do?

I think they learned their lesson with that, with the fact that none of the combat skill-feats from UA (https://media.wizards.com/2017/dnd/downloads/UA-SkillFeats.pdf) made it to the release of Xanathar's. Instead, they released Prodigy (basically Expertise and some minor proficiencies).

Additionally, there are hardly any mentions of skill-related features in the post-handbook content. That is, you gain skills, but you don't generally gain features that skills might duplicate. Mastermind is the only thing that comes close that I can remember, and it mostly duplicates what's already written in the Actor feat (that is, it's not burning any bridges that aren't already burned).

If I had to wager a guess, they want skills to be more open-ended rather than adding content that defines what you're allowed to do. The problem is, they started with a bad release state for skills and didn't realize the mistake until much later. I don't know if there's a way to make things like the Assassin too terribly effective without adding more restrictions to make their features necessary.

For those who haven't read into the Skill-Feats, you definitely should. It gives some great insight as to how your players could be using their skills for combat, and provide some key guidance on what kind of balance those effects may be.

Since Prodigy is a feat, and basically gives you Expertise, we can reasonably assume Expertise is roughly worth the same amount as a feat. You can use this information to gauge what kind of DC should be necessary for someone to perform one of these "skill feats", since they've already spent that feat's worth of investment. That is, for someone to gain value of these "skill-feat maneuvers", they should first have Expertise (or its worth in a skill bonus). So...a DC 20? Seems about right to me. But I'm rambling by this point, so Ima stop.

Wasp

2020-03-27, 07:35 PM

Why couldn't you pull this off with the Battle Smith? You get to use INT for attacks made with magical weapons starting at 3rd level so your modifiers will be the same for the blade and the hand crossbow. You can infuse the blade for +1 to hit and damage, and infuse the hand crossbow for +1 to hit and damage as well as reloading itself. At 5th level you get extra attack so there's nothing stopping you from using blade and hand crossbow in the same turn. With Crossbow Expert you'd even be able to shoot again using your bonus action (or command your Steel Defender if you don't want to fire). I'd personally skip Crossbow Expert and snag Mobile for this build. Move up, stab, back away, fire, bonus action tell your Steel Defender to bite or grapple.
Well, without Crossbow expert it would be better to just use a melee weapon and shield instead of melee weapon and hand crossbow. You'd get the same damage with better AC and one less infusion used. And with Crossbow expert you would be better off using one repeating shot infused hand crossbow for all attacks. Or am I missing something?

nickl_2000

2020-03-27, 08:55 PM

The Skald. The combination Barbarian/Bard who uses Song in battle to bolsters their allies but is magical like a Bard in 5e.

The valor bard is kind of there, but just isn't good enough in my mind.

Renvir

2020-03-27, 11:40 PM

Well, without Crossbow expert it would be better to just use a melee weapon and shield instead of melee weapon and hand crossbow. You'd get the same damage with better AC and one less infusion used. And with Crossbow expert you would be better off using one repeating shot infused hand crossbow for all attacks. Or am I missing something?

You aren't missing anything. In fact, the melee and shield build will actually have better damage since your weapon wouldn't need to be Light. So you'd get 1d8 vs 1d6. But I don't think comparing that build against the one I proposed negates the fact that you can pull off your sword and crossbow/pistol character concept. The concept you want can work within the existing 5e framework as long as you are willing to sacrifice 2 AC and 1 or 2 damage. And don't forget, with your concept you gain the freedom to make melee or ranged attacks on your turn without trying to switch out weapons. That versatility isn't nothing, even if it doesn't show up well on paper.

MrStabby

2020-03-28, 03:02 AM

Okay- I totally get it, me and MOG were coming at this from the angle of giving what we see as valid options with refluff/minor 'brew. Two totally different thoughts, my bad. Have you looked at Blood Hunter? It's BASICALLY official, included in D&D Beyond. It's an Intelligence based half-caster that uses knowledge about its prey to defeat them. It feels like what you're looking for, but I'm only just trying to offer helpful suggestions.

Hey, no problem. I have not seen a blood hunter, though I have heard the name.

My personal view is that my table will never use 3rd party homebrew. If you want homebrew we make it at the table together with the consent of everyone there. Why would someone who doesn't know the campaign, the party makeup or player preferences be able to do something better than a group that does.

Though this is because I usually DM... if I am to play then I will be ankding by someone elses rules.

You're making me misty-eyed for Knowledge Devotion - back in the 3.X days, there was a feat that gave you bonuses to attack and damage rolls based off the results of a Knowledge check.

A feat for it is pretty neat. Normally I wouldn't be a fan of allowing someone to pick up the core identity of another character so easily but it isn't so easy as int is so commonly a dump stat. I guess in 3rd you invested morenin skills as you went along g so it reflected more of an ongoing cost. Ability in 5th to take the feat and to dip cleric or rogue for expertise undermines a bit.

On the other hand, if there is a sceptical DM who is in principle open to homebrew but worries about the balance of big changes then playing an int based ranger with this replacing the ASI at 4th level might be a way to bring on board.

Still... I would like it if we had some WotC support for it. Given that the feats were probably the best balanced.player options in Xanathars guide, I wouldn't mind seeing a few.more in whatever they release in future.

JackPhoenix

2020-03-28, 07:37 AM

Why would someone who doesn't know the campaign, the party makeup or player preferences be able to do something better than a group that does.

You can say the same thing about the PHB classes, though. Just because something is homebrew doesn't mean it's crap, and just because something is official doesn't mean it's good. Did the WotC took your campaign, party make up or player preferences into consideration when they designed 4e monk or beastmaster ranger?

da newt

2020-03-28, 08:03 AM

A mask of many faces warlock / rogue could be made into a really good secret agent / assassin / infiltration expert. Expertise in Deception and Persuasion. Yuan-Ti for poison and racial suggestion. Bladelock for summoning your weapon or Chain for an invisible buddy (w/ prof in dec and pers so they can HELP for ADV on ability checks).

Amechra

2020-03-28, 09:20 AM

A feat for it is pretty neat. Normally I wouldn't be a fan of allowing someone to pick up the core identity of another character so easily but it isn't so easy as int is so commonly a dump stat. I guess in 3rd you invested morenin skills as you went along g so it reflected more of an ongoing cost. Ability in 5th to take the feat and to dip cleric or rogue for expertise undermines a bit.

On the other hand, if there is a sceptical DM who is in principle open to homebrew but worries about the balance of big changes then playing an int based ranger with this replacing the ASI at 4th level might be a way to bring on board.

Still... I would like it if we had some WotC support for it. Given that the feats were probably the best balanced.player options in Xanathars guide, I wouldn't mind seeing a few.more in whatever they release in future.

In 3.X, you could hit the cap of +5 to attack rolls and damage by level 6. Progression in 5e is adorably slow in comparison with 3.X's madcap dash towards godhood, and didn't involve much in the way of ongoing costs.

But I agree with you - I really want to see more feats. Subclasses are cool and all, but they aren't really something you can add to an existing character.

MrStabby

2020-03-28, 10:15 AM

You can say the same thing about the PHB classes, though. Just because something is homebrew doesn't mean it's crap, and just because something is official doesn't mean it's good. Did the WotC took your campaign, party make up or player preferences into consideration when they designed 4e monk or beastmaster ranger?

If something being homebrew made it crap then I wouldn't be using my own...

And yes, as you say the same thing can be said about the PHB. There is at least the benefit that it is possible that people can lose their jobs over taking insufficient care and producing bad stuff. There is at least some quality control as well as the incentive to think things through.

So the difference with the PHB is that players have a legitimate expectation that they can play these options. In terms of keeping a happy table you lose something by denying these (although some campaigns at some tables do cut some classes that dont fit the campaign themes). It is a trade off, and a trade off that doesn't exist for other's homebrew.

Man_Over_Game

2020-03-28, 11:10 AM

If something being homebrew made it crap then I wouldn't be using my own...

And yes, as you say the same thing can be said about the PHB. There is at least the benefit that it is possible that people can lose their jobs over taking insufficient care and producing bad stuff. There is at least some quality control as well as the incentive to think things through.

So the difference with the PHB is that players have a legitimate expectation that they can play these options. In terms of keeping a happy table you lose something by denying these (although some campaigns at some tables do cut some classes that dont fit the campaign themes). It is a trade off, and a trade off that doesn't exist for other's homebrew.

I don't think that necessarily has to be true, though. Just because homebrew was made as a hobby and has less risk for the creator doesn't mean that homebrewed content can't be scrutinized for quality control.

Consider our own homebrew subclass contests, which are regularly judged by other creators, people who are familiar with mechanics and content enough to make this stuff for fun. Voting is based on the values of each participant, which means that things like Balance, Thematics, Niche, and Fun are all considered.

Even with my own stuff, I dare people to break it. People on the internet will love to show you how stupid you are, especially when you give them permission. I then catalogue whatever the most "dangerous" scenarios were that people managed to find with my content, and then compare it with every similar existing mechanic that I can think of that might compete with it (is a Dexterity-based Berserker strictly better than a Strength-based one?), and jot down my findings for each homebrew (so that players will decide on those changes rather than relying on faith).

I realize that can come off as humblebragging, but the point I'm trying to get at is that there are ways of refining homebrew content so that quality assurance is not just possible, but perceivable.

Do we honestly know why WotC added Hexblade instead of buffing Pact of the Blade, why the Banneret/Purple Dragon Knight is so lackluster, or why skill feats didn't make it into the game? For the most part, we're relying on faith, mostly based on WotC's desire to make money off of us. Not saying they're the devil or anything, but having faith in something because they'll make profit off of you doesn't always mean they make the best decisions specific for you.

Personally, I think the best content in the game basically just boils down to the Wild Magic Sorcerer, Battlemaster Fighter, Shadow/Open Palm Monk, a few of the Cleric subclasses, and maybe 1-2 of the paladin subclasses. Most of the other stuff feels so generic and unimpactful that I could have expected similar content to come from a 16-year-old. Put another way, would anybody feel justified in paying $5 for the Champion or Undying Patron?

MrStabby

2020-03-28, 12:19 PM

I don't think that necessarily has to be true, though. Just because homebrew was made as a hobby and has less risk for the creator doesn't mean that homebrewed content can't be scrutinized for quality control.

Consider our own homebrew subclass contests, which are regularly judged by other creators, people who are familiar with mechanics and content enough to make this stuff for fun. Voting is based on the values of each participant, which means that things like Balance, Thematics, Niche, and Fun are all considered.

Even with my own stuff, I dare people to break it. People on the internet will love to show you how stupid you are, especially when you give them permission. I then catalogue whatever the most "dangerous" scenarios were that people managed to find with my content, and then compare it with every similar existing mechanic that I can think of that might compete with it (is a Dexterity-based Berserker strictly better than a Strength-based one?), and jot down my findings for each homebrew (so that players will decide on those changes rather than relying on faith).

I realize that can come off as humblebragging, but the point I'm trying to get at is that there are ways of refining homebrew content so that quality assurance is not just possible, but perceivable.

Do we honestly know why WotC added Hexblade instead of buffing Pact of the Blade, why the Banneret/Purple Dragon Knight is so lackluster, or why skill feats didn't make it into the game? For the most part, we're relying on faith, mostly based on WotC's desire to make money off of us. Not saying they're the devil or anything, but having faith in something because they'll make profit off of you doesn't always mean they make the best decisions specific for you.

Personally, I think the best content in the game basically just boils down to the Wild Magic Sorcerer, Battlemaster Fighter, Shadow/Open Palm Monk, a few of the Cleric subclasses, and maybe 1-2 of the paladin subclasses. Most of the other stuff feels so generic and unimpactful that I could have expected similar content to come from a 16-year-old. Put another way, would anybody feel justified in paying $5 for the Champion or Undying Patron?

Just to reiterate, I dont think homebrew has to be bad. I have seen enough stuff on places like middle finger of Vecna and D&D wiki to not trust stuff I see online, though I have absolutely no doubt there is also better stuff out there, and though I dont often go to the homebrew forums here I know that a few years ago there was certainly some good stuff out there.

And nor am I saying that the bar that WotC has to publish stuff is particularly high, or even as high as it should be. But at least there is a bar. And yes, some people can set themselves a bar that is higher but of you dont know them why would you believe that without a through evaluation of their stuff. And at the end of the day WotC seems to want to do things better and they do gather data from feedback, probably more feedback than anyone else has on their homebrew.

But if we are to want to use high quality homebrew, then I still cant see the case for using someone elses rather than making your own? I see there is a case for not using homebrew at all, or for not using WotC content either (and the idea of a world and a game with all homebrew content seems fun), but what I cant see is a case for using someone elses content when you can make your own appropriate to your needs and with less risk on the quality.

JNAProductions

2020-03-28, 12:22 PM

Just to reiterate, I dont think homebrew has to be bad. I have seen enough stuff on places like middle finger of Vecna and D&D wiki to not trust stuff I see online, though I have absolutely no doubt there is also better stuff out there, and though I dont often go to the homebrew forums here I know that a few years ago there was certainly some good stuff out there.

And nor am I saying that the bar that WotC has to publish stuff is particularly high, or even as high as it should be. But at least there is a bar. And yes, some people can set themselves a bar that is higher but of you dont know them why would you believe that without a through evaluation of their stuff. And at the end of the day WotC seems to want to do things better and they do gather data from feedback, probably more feedback than anyone else has on their homebrew.

But if we are to want to use high quality homebrew, then I still cant see the case for using someone elses rather than making your own? I see there is a case for not using homebrew at all, or for not using WotC content either (and the idea of a world and a game with all homebrew content seems fun), but what I cant see is a case for using someone elses content when you can make your own appropriate to your needs and with less risk on the quality.

Because not everyone is good at homebrew. And, even if you only use your own homebrew, you can look to what other people have done to get ideas.

DracoKnight

2020-03-28, 01:00 PM

Man_Over_Game

2020-03-28, 01:07 PM

I haven't played much 4E, but can a buff/support cleric or paladin do this, like the redemption paladin?

Not really. I dunno if you saw the Stone Sorcerer in Unearthed Arcana, but that was the closest we’ve gotten to 4e’s Sword Mage in 5e, which is why I’m really sad it didn’t make it into Xanathar’s.

I think a better example, mechanically, is the Ancestral Guardian Barbarian on a Monk chassis.

Which is actually very possible with Drunken Master levels and using Rage for defense:
4 Barbarian and 16 Monk, for when you can kite behind your Paladin or Fighter buddies. OR
16 Barbarian and 4 Monk, for when you can afford your kiting tactics against singular bosses. OR
20 Barbarian, taking the Mobile feat.

The Swordmage had some magical bits about it, but it was mostly just about utilizing mobility with taunting enemies to run around like a massive a**hole.

MrStabby

2020-03-28, 01:11 PM

Because not everyone is good at homebrew. And, even if you only use your own homebrew, you can look to what other people have done to get ideas.

So there are two aspects to homebrew that make you good at it in my opinion. Creativity and balance. If you lack creativity then sure, look at other content. I would encourage it. I know a lot of people steal homebrew ideas from history or mythology or pop culture without creating their own. That's fine.

But if the issue is balance and you dont have good judgement there, if that is where your skills are lacking then how do you expect to be able to tell what is going to be balanced at your table?

I think that it is also worth illustrating what I was meaning by making homebrew appropriate to your game. So if I were to homebrew a new cleric domain for a campaign and there were to be no undead in it, then I would give the domain a bit of a boost to reflect that there would be no uses for turn undead. If there were to be a campaign against friends or other magic resistant enemies then there might be one or two more attack roll based spells added.

DracoKnight

2020-03-28, 01:11 PM

I think a better example, mechanically, is the Ancestral Guardian Barbarian on a Monk chassis.

Which is actually very possible with the Drunken Master, or taking the Mobile feat.

The Swordmage had some magical bits about it, but it was mostly just about utilizing mobility with taunting enemies to run around like a massive a**hole.

Sure, if you ignore the fact that Mearls explicitly based the Stone Sorcerer on the Sword Mage. And it gets the Sword Mage’s Aegis powers.

https://media.wizards.com/2017/dnd/downloads/26_UASorcererUA020617s.pdf

Man_Over_Game

2020-03-28, 01:30 PM

Sure, if you ignore the fact that Mearls explicitly based the Stone Sorcerer on the Sword Mage. And it gets the Sword Mage’s Aegis powers.

https://media.wizards.com/2017/dnd/downloads/26_UASorcererUA020617s.pdf

Ancestral Guardian works by attacking a creature, then punishing that creature for attacking the Barbarian's allies. It works effectively well at close-mid range, since there's no requirement to make a melee attack to mark an enemy.

Stone Sorcerer works by shielding an ally, and punishing an enemy that attacks that ally. It works well at almost all ranges, since it has the full-casting of a normal Sorcerer and teleporting to warded allies.

Aegis powers of the Swordmage rely on marking a target that the Swordmage hits with a weapon attack, and then providing some kind of punishment/damage mitigation on the marked enemy if the enemy attacks an ally other than the Swordmage.

Most of the Swordmage's powers are melee or mid-range effects. It has options for teleporting to a marked enemy.

Of these core mechanics, which is it more similar to between the AG or the SS?

I'm not saying the Stone Sorcerer isn't good or fun, but I wouldn't be surprised if the Ancestral Guardian was designed around the Swordmage first.

DracoKnight

2020-03-28, 03:15 PM

Ancestral Guardian works by attacking a creature, then punishing that creature for attacking the Barbarian's allies. It works effectively well at close-mid range, since there's no requirement to make a melee attack to mark an enemy.

Stone Sorcerer works by shielding an ally, and punishing an enemy that attacks that ally. It works well at almost all ranges, since it has the full-casting of a normal Sorcerer and teleporting to warded allies.

Aegis powers of the Swordmage rely on marking a target that the Swordmage hits with a weapon attack, and then providing some kind of punishment/damage mitigation on the marked enemy if the enemy attacks an ally other than the Swordmage.

Most of the Swordmage's powers are melee or mid-range effects. It has options for teleporting to a marked enemy.

Of these core mechanics, which is it more similar to between the AG or the SS?

I'm not saying the Stone Sorcerer isn't good or fun, but I wouldn't be surprised if the Ancestral Guardian was designed around the Swordmage first.

Forgive me, but no. The Stone Sorcerer was the attempt at a 5e Sword Mage: https://twitter.com/knuckleofvecna/status/760156564434980865

Waazraath

2020-03-28, 04:15 PM

Considering how the PF Shifter ended (fully focused on Wildshaping, but...had its issues), it's better to limit this to a subclass. The Barbarian's getting Path of the Beast, though, which should scratch your itch for it - while you don't truly transform, you still get some of the stuff of the Warshaper in principle, like the new natural attacks. You just don't get something like the Druid's A Thousand Faces.

I could also see it as a Roguish Archetype. The Assassin has some skill at disguises, but it's not true transformation. I could see it as something a la 3.5's Cabinet Trickster - while specific only to Changelings, it gave them the shapeshifting capabilities of a Doppleganger, plus some cool psionic tricks. Permanent Detect Thoughts was the killer app here, though, since it flowed so naturally into Mindspy (think someone who weaponizes Detect Thoughts).

Well, I dunno about PF, but the concept of shapeshifter without casting was done pretty well in the 2 prestige classes I mention; either turn into an animal / monster, or shapeshift your own form to give it extra natural attacks, faster healing, etc. Barbarian's path is even with refluffing a bit 'meh' implementation of it. And I don't see those classes as specialists, they (MoMF, Warshaper, Bear Warrior) were all prime melee/fighters. Don't know how I 'd see them working in the 5e framework, but it's really missing.

I...dunno if it'd work. The thing about 5e is to keep it simple, and Pact Magic was incredibly complicated - you had Vestiges you could bind into, and they gave you supernatural powers that recharged after a few turns. You could change your build almost every day, but you needed a solid grasp of the class and what it offered to make the right choices (particularly when you could have more than one bound vestige at once). I'll concur that it was a very cool system, one that had its uses (semi-infinite Summon Monster spells with the caveat of having a template tacked in? Who cares, it's infinite summons!), but it could get kinda complicated.

This could be done pretty easy I think -would take a new class, like Artificer though. All those vestige gave a few small abilities, making the char a bit better in melee, or a bit like a rogue... never as good as the real thing, but decent abilities, and a bit weird, and combining more vestiges made cool and unique combo's possible. The summoning vestige wouldn't be possible in the 5e framework (that's much more simplified), but it was an obscure vestige from a web article, not in the book.

Morty

2020-03-28, 05:16 PM

AdAstra

2020-03-28, 05:44 PM

A sniper character who doesn't shoot more than once per round and isn't a rogue. A finesse fighter that doesn't need to either use a rapier or reskin something. Corollary, a fighter who uses a single weapon without homebrewing a way for it not to be strictly worse than using a shield.

The old Artificer Gunsmith had a lot of that, though it's certainly not a conventional sniper. Sadly I think one big powerful shot is liable not to play very well by its nature. Being able to lose all your damage in a turn to one bad roll rarely feels good. Any sniper would need means of mitigating that risk, but things like hiding are already covered by the rogue, and things like a bonus action Aim are not particularly interesting mechanics, in addition to taking up room in the turn.

Finesse fighter, yeah, it's annoying. Closest you can get is a Monk multiclass (Kensei for more options).

Aside from great weapon builds (not particularly hard to say that your greatsword is just a special regular sword), you could refluff a glaive or halberd as another type of slashing weapon. The extra reach could be justified as good footwork.

Renvir

2020-03-28, 10:14 PM

The old Artificer Gunsmith had a lot of that, though it's certainly not a conventional sniper. Sadly I think one big powerful shot is liable not to play very well by its nature. Being able to lose all your damage in a turn to one bad roll rarely feels good. Any sniper would need means of mitigating that risk, but things like hiding are already covered by the rogue, and things like a bonus action Aim are not particularly interesting mechanics, in addition to taking up room in the turn.

A War Cleric X/Fighter 1 could meet these requirements. The combination of Archery FS, Bless, and Guided Strike makes for a high hit rate. Just take the Sharpshooter Feat and you've got a sniper that only attacks once per turn and isn't a rogue.

JNAProductions

2020-03-28, 10:18 PM

A War Cleric X/Fighter 1 could meet these requirements. The combination of Archery FS, Bless, and Guided Strike makes for a high hit rate. Just take the Sharpshooter Feat and you've got a sniper that only attacks once per turn and isn't a rogue.

And at higher levels is way better off casting a spell than shooting.

DracoKnight

2020-03-28, 11:56 PM

And at higher levels is way better off casting a spell than shooting.

Well, that’s just when you call in a Tactical (Flame) Strike.

Tanarii

2020-03-29, 01:00 AM

Primal Barbarians, channeling into animal or elemental forms. Also Wardens. That was a missed opportunity coming from the last edition.

T.G. Oskar

2020-03-29, 04:50 AM

Well, I dunno about PF, but the concept of shapeshifter without casting was done pretty well in the 2 prestige classes I mention; either turn into an animal / monster, or shapeshift your own form to give it extra natural attacks, faster healing, etc. Barbarian's path is even with refluffing a bit 'meh' implementation of it. And I don't see those classes as specialists, they (MoMF, Warshaper, Bear Warrior) were all prime melee/fighters. Don't know how I 'd see them working in the 5e framework, but it's really missing.

Oh, I'll admit - Warshaper is pretty boss, particularly if you had something good to go with it. It's not meant for a primary trick, though; that is, you don't make a build around the Warshaper, but instead use it to enhance a build that relies on shapeshifting. Or at least, that's how I see it - while it has some amazing benefits (+STR/CON, reach, fast healing, immunity to crits and sneak attacks, and of course the extra attack, which could instead allow an existing attack to become more powerful), it was mostly a bunch of solid passive bonuses and one solid source of attack. I could see it on a Cabinet Trickster, though, since between the two you also have the Thought Tricks and whatnot.

However, they're not meant to exist as a class by itself - which is what they did with the PF Shifter. They made an entire class about Wild Shape, but in a way that's all or nothing. It's a cool concept, but not one to fully base a class upon. Now, I'll admit that 5e's Wild Shape is a bit crazy (since it essentially mostly adds your mental attributes to the monster's stat block), but if that's the entire basis for your class, then it's lacking. To put it simply: what would be the subclasses for that class? You could say that you could focus on a specific creature type (one that shifts into Elementals, one that shifts into Celestials, one who shifts into Fiends, etc.), but you'd have to define the basis, and define what other features they get. That's in a way what PF tried to do with their own shapeshfiting class, and it ended up weaker than they thought, because while you had a lot of uses of wildshaping, you'd end up somewhat similar to 3.5's Monk where you became super-dependent on magic items, instead of being the opposite. Sure, you can fly, but only if you turn into a Small creature, which isn't meant for battle.

That's why I said that it's better as a subclass, and as you mentioned - Prestige Classes were the most efficient ways to do so. I could add the Shapeshifter from Oriental Adventures which was a way to grant Wild Shape in a certain way, but they had to be tied to a class first. As it stands, the Path of the Beast for the Barbarian is the closest thing, since while it doesn't grant full shapeshifting (it's more akin to a Dr. Jekyll/Mr. Hyde thing, or even a Bruce Banner/Hulk thing, except both sides are feral instead of one), it still is explicitly fluffed as one. I could see a Barbarian going Bear Warrior, though. In a way, Circle of the Moon Druids also explicitly deal with shapeshifting, in that they improve the shapeshifting abilities of the Druid.

But in short - it's ill-fitting as a class by itself, and there's evidence to it. Bear Warrior was close, but MoMF required previous spellcasting, and Warshaper was only 5 levels long and a buff rather than a build-maker. I could see it as a subclass...and Path of the Beast and Circle of the Moon already deal with that.

This could be done pretty easy I think -would take a new class, like Artificer though. All those vestige gave a few small abilities, making the char a bit better in melee, or a bit like a rogue... never as good as the real thing, but decent abilities, and a bit weird, and combining more vestiges made cool and unique combo's possible. The summoning vestige wouldn't be possible in the 5e framework (that's much more simplified), but it was an obscure vestige from a web article, not in the book.

Again, too complicated. While it wouldn't need to be mechanically complicated - you could make it so that each Vestige acts like a subclass, and every day you essentially change your subclass - it could be a nightmare for book-keeping, which is something that would drive away some of the people that got into the game for its simplicity. Even suggesting the idea makes for a radical departure of the way classes are built in 5e. Not that it wouldn't be cool to see the Binder return, but...heck, even in 4e, it was an alternate class for the Warlock.

(And yes, I specifically chose Zceryll because it literally changed the power level of the class. By certain levels, some vestiges were just not useful - sure, you could combine, say, Andromalius and Savnok and Tenebrous and have a sort of Paladin...but who seriously uses...say, the architect vestige whose name escapes me? And that wasn't a low-level vestige, that's a 5th to 7th level one. Yes, it allowed you to be a little bit of everything, and could make for cool combinations, but not all of them were good enough.)

TigerT20

2020-03-29, 04:56 AM

The old Artificer Gunsmith had a lot of that, though it's certainly not a conventional sniper. Sadly I think one big powerful shot is liable not to play very well by its nature. Being able to lose all your damage in a turn to one bad roll rarely feels good. Any sniper would need means of mitigating that risk, but things like hiding are already covered by the rogue, and things like a bonus action Aim are not particularly interesting mechanics, in addition to taking up room in the turn.

Finesse fighter, yeah, it's annoying. Closest you can get is a Monk multiclass (Kensei for more options).

Aside from great weapon builds (not particularly hard to say that your greatsword is just a special regular sword), you could refluff a glaive or halberd as another type of slashing weapon. The extra reach could be justified as good footwork.

I think they might mean one-handed weapons specifically, as polearms and other two-handed weapon builds are pretty popular

LudicSavant

2020-03-29, 05:10 AM

Strong archers. Think of Hercules, or the story of Odysseus where he proved his identity by having the strength to bend his bow. Others examples include characters like Hawkeye, who is presented as having a great deal of physical strength (in the comics, he uses an insane 200 pound draw bow and is shown to be ridiculously strong for a human (https://i.imgur.com/feYvsxL.jpg). And other people keep failing to draw his bow (https://i.imgur.com/LAfS0CV.jpg) (additional link (https://www.blastoffcomics.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/02/practice.jpg))).

Fun thing from real life: You can identify the bones of historical bowmen because their training messes up their body in interesting ways (https://theglyptodon.wordpress.com/2012/06/26/the-archers-bones/).

And yet in D&D, bowmen dump Strength.

JackPhoenix

2020-03-29, 05:59 AM

MrStabby

2020-03-29, 07:45 AM

TigerT20

2020-03-29, 07:51 AM

Strong archers.

And yet in D&D, bowmen dump Strength.

You could give longbows the Finesse trait... but it would be a suboptimal choice to use Strength every time due to how much better Dexterity is in 5E

MrStabby

2020-03-29, 07:54 AM

You could give longbows the Finesse trait... but it would be a suboptimal choice to use Strength every time due to how much better Dexterity is in 5E

One advantage of dex is that it supports well both melee and ranges weapon attacks. If strength did, it would close the gap. In reality this change would just mean pole arm master paladins would have a better ranged option than javalins rather than opening new concepts. . . I think.

Wasp

2020-03-29, 08:45 AM

I have talked to someone who was dissatisfied that you could focus on DEX for Bows (and some other weapons) while it's apparently very important to have STR for an archer, so they chose to change weapon fighting to use (STR + DEX)/2 instead. I have no ideas how that works in practice and must admit that I just found it funny considering they didn't change anything about HP and rest... ;-)

Zetakya

2020-03-29, 09:00 AM

Strength not affecting bow damage is one of those artefacts of 5e being simplified to permit and encourage SAD builds. The same as DEX no longer being utilised for accuracy of touch/ranged touch spells from casters. There's no longer a trade off to be made; each class just has one stat to rule all its abilities.

JNAProductions

2020-03-29, 09:14 AM

Wasp

2020-03-29, 10:02 AM

It's a big nerf to pretty much any weapon user.
But in the name of "realism" sacrifices have to be made! :smallbiggrin:

BUT: I do think wanting a STR based Longbow Archer isn't a bad thing. I had just problems with that particular person I met outside of this forum and their framing. You are all OK and lovely! :smallcool:

3drinks

2020-03-29, 10:30 AM

You don't even have to multiclass. You can easily flavor a warlock as having escaped the control of their patron, and their increase in power (as they gain warlock levels) is essentially a side effect of their initial pact. You could even flavor enemies to be agents of the patron, hunting down the apostate. That's exactly how my brother ran his.

Regarding your original question, it depends on how hard you're willing to fluff, and how much you're willing to let slide for game balance. For example, you could have a "no magic" healer by describing your cleric's healing magic as based on medical tools, specialized equipment, first aid kits, and so forth. You have to be willing to explain how "non magic" means can be affected by things like antimagical fields, though. But perhaps magic is less of a strict concept in that setting and really just refers to any reasonably sophisticated tech? I guess the setting would inform that to a large degree.

I find it hard to really get trapped if I'm willing to revisualize how features and classes appear in the game.

Isn't that just about what Fjord did on Critical Role?

LudicSavant

2020-03-29, 10:38 AM

Daphne

2020-03-29, 10:41 AM

I want to see a Fighter subclass that focus on defensive features instead of offensive ones. Not talking about tanking as in protecting allies.

elyktsorb

2020-03-29, 10:46 AM

Can I just say I wish the Spore druid was better? Because I want that >_>

micahaphone

2020-03-29, 11:22 AM

I want to see a Fighter subclass that focus on defensive features instead of offensive ones. Not talking about tanking as in protecting allies.

Like the Cavalier, ignoring their mounted perks?

Maybe wotc is apprehensive about a more defensive fighter because it gets too close to barbarian.

Daphne

2020-03-29, 11:25 AM

Like the Cavalier, ignoring their mounted perks?

Cavalier focuses on protecting allies, not himself.

micahaphone

2020-03-29, 11:28 AM

Cavalier focuses on protecting allies, not himself.
What would you want out of a tankier fighter subclass that's not a part of barbarian? A way to increase AC? I could see a fighter with something like the forge cleric's armor boost, but that alone isn't enough for a subclass.

Daphne

2020-03-29, 11:36 AM

What would you want out of a tankier fighter subclass that's not a part of barbarian? A way to increase AC? I could see a fighter with something like the forge cleric's armor boost, but that alone isn't enough for a subclass.

There are multiple ways to make a Fighter tankier: AC bonuses, damage reduction abilities, resistances, bonus to saving throws...

Besides, Barbarians have a very specific tribal flavor and get their damage resistances to compensate for their lower AC and Reckless Attack.

LudicSavant

2020-03-29, 11:40 AM

There are multiple ways to make a Fighter tankier: AC bonuses, damage reduction abilities, resistances, bonus to saving throws...

Eldritch Knights can do all four of those things.

Daphne

2020-03-29, 11:44 AM

Eldritch Knights can do all four of those things.

I should have specified that I was wishing for a non-magical subclass.

Man_Over_Game

2020-03-29, 11:55 AM

I want to see a Fighter subclass that focus on defensive features instead of offensive ones. Not talking about tanking as in protecting allies.

You could also pull that off with Battlemaster Maneuvers. Several are based around avoiding damage.

One thing of note, though:. If you spend all of your energy on making yourself a difficult target, they'll decide to target someone else, and then what do you do?

The reason the Cavalier works is because it believes the Fighter is already tanky enough for enemies to have a reason to ignore him.

Daphne

2020-03-29, 11:59 AM

You could also pull that off with Battlemaster Maneuvers. Several are based around avoiding damage.

I do like the Parry maneuver at low levels, too bad it pigeonholes you in a DEX build and practically doesn't scale.

Morty

2020-03-29, 01:29 PM

Man_Over_Game

2020-03-29, 01:55 PM

There's a number of these that would be solved if D&D didn't desperately pigeon-hole characters into using one particular attribute above all others. With the game typically deciding on the attribute in advance.

Not intended as a mean to plug, but my Prestige Options Homebrew was designed around addressing that exact issue, while also fixing any multiclassing concerns from doing so.

It has notes on justification for each option too, so it's more than just "some guy on the internet said these were cool" if you decide to present it to your DM. Link is in the signature, if it interests you. I've spent a lot more time on it than is probably healthy, and I still update it whenever I get Inspiration for a new option (most recent being con-based Sorcerers).

Waazraath

2020-03-29, 04:42 PM

Oh, I'll admit - Warshaper is pretty boss, particularly if you had something good to go with it. It's not meant for a primary trick, though; that is, you don't make a build around the Warshaper, but instead use it to enhance a build that relies on shapeshifting. Or at least, that's how I see it - while it has some amazing benefits (+STR/CON, reach, fast healing, immunity to crits and sneak attacks, and of course the extra attack, which could instead allow an existing attack to become more powerful), it was mostly a bunch of solid passive bonuses and one solid source of attack. I could see it on a Cabinet Trickster, though, since between the two you also have the Thought Tricks and whatnot.

However, they're not meant to exist as a class by itself - which is what they did with the PF Shifter. They made an entire class about Wild Shape, but in a way that's all or nothing. It's a cool concept, but not one to fully base a class upon. Now, I'll admit that 5e's Wild Shape is a bit crazy (since it essentially mostly adds your mental attributes to the monster's stat block), but if that's the entire basis for your class, then it's lacking. To put it simply: what would be the subclasses for that class? You could say that you could focus on a specific creature type (one that shifts into Elementals, one that shifts into Celestials, one who shifts into Fiends, etc.), but you'd have to define the basis, and define what other features they get. That's in a way what PF tried to do with their own shapeshfiting class, and it ended up weaker than they thought, because while you had a lot of uses of wildshaping, you'd end up somewhat similar to 3.5's Monk where you became super-dependent on magic items, instead of being the opposite. Sure, you can fly, but only if you turn into a Small creature, which isn't meant for battle.

That's why I said that it's better as a subclass, and as you mentioned - Prestige Classes were the most efficient ways to do so. I could add the Shapeshifter from Oriental Adventures which was a way to grant Wild Shape in a certain way, but they had to be tied to a class first. As it stands, the Path of the Beast for the Barbarian is the closest thing, since while it doesn't grant full shapeshifting (it's more akin to a Dr. Jekyll/Mr. Hyde thing, or even a Bruce Banner/Hulk thing, except both sides are feral instead of one), it still is explicitly fluffed as one. I could see a Barbarian going Bear Warrior, though. In a way, Circle of the Moon Druids also explicitly deal with shapeshifting, in that they improve the shapeshifting abilities of the Druid.

But in short - it's ill-fitting as a class by itself, and there's evidence to it. Bear Warrior was close, but MoMF required previous spellcasting, and Warshaper was only 5 levels long and a buff rather than a build-maker. I could see it as a subclass...and Path of the Beast and Circle of the Moon already deal with that.

Bolded for emphasis. The second one (required spellcasting) is incorrect: you could use the spell-less ranger variant, with the wild shape alternative class feature, and you were a martial based MoMF from level 6 onwards (and a shape shifter from 5). And it really is doable in the 5e framework, thinking about it. Lets call is "shape shifter" class (and let somebody else come up with a cool name), give it mechanics similar to wildshape (over the levels: turn into creatures with more HD, and with stronger abilities), and give it for example subclasses 'infiltrater' (focussing on turning into other humanoids), and monsterman (more melee focus, turn into giants and the like).

Again, too complicated. While it wouldn't need to be mechanically complicated - you could make it so that each Vestige acts like a subclass, and every day you essentially change your subclass - it could be a nightmare for book-keeping, which is something that would drive away some of the people that got into the game for its simplicity. Even suggesting the idea makes for a radical departure of the way classes are built in 5e. Not that it wouldn't be cool to see the Binder return, but...heck, even in 4e, it was an alternate class for the Warlock.

(And yes, I specifically chose Zceryll because it literally changed the power level of the class. By certain levels, some vestiges were just not useful - sure, you could combine, say, Andromalius and Savnok and Tenebrous and have a sort of Paladin...but who seriously uses...say, the architect vestige whose name escapes me? And that wasn't a low-level vestige, that's a 5th to 7th level one. Yes, it allowed you to be a little bit of everything, and could make for cool combinations, but not all of them were good enough.)

Don't want to derail the thread by focussing too much on a rarther obscure 3.5 class, but 1) you are right about Zceryll, and how powerful it is - but the class was totally viable without it, and was interesting because of combining the different vesitiges. The power level isn't a problem anyway, cause that changes anyway when adjusting things to 5e. And given how 5e handles summoning, this in't one of the most logical vestiges to use, if they would ever make the class (which I think they prolly wont, alas).

Again, it really shouldn't be too hard to make it a 5e class, thinking about it. Basic d8 simple weapons light armor 2 skills, cha and con saves, and from their get access to different vestiges at different levels, stronger later, and ability to combine them later. Replace 1/5 rounds abilities with short rest abilities, and refit abilities to the 5e framework. Subclasses could be pretty obvious: 1) dedicated binder (almost all prestige classes in ToM requirered you to choose a favoured vestige), 2) Anima mage (1/3 caster, compared to EK or AT in 5e), and maybe a Autmenter(focussing on the pact augmentation mechanic, seperating it from the class as a whole to avoid a too complicated class).

It really shouldn't be more complicated than a 5e artificer or warlock, that need to juggle infusions/invocations, spells, (optional) feats and other class features.

greenstone

2020-03-29, 05:34 PM

A "zero to hero" progression

5E level 1 characters are already very powerful compared to normal commoners. I'd like to see support for starting with commoner-level abilities (i.e. none :-) and gaining power slowly (several weeks to get to level 1, for example).

DrFunkenstein

2020-03-29, 06:35 PM

I miss the barbarian wildshaper (with no spells).

Solly the Gnome might interest you. I've written a post about him, but I can't link it because I'm new here, but the title is "Solly the Gnome: Overlooked Power Combo?"

T.G. Oskar

2020-03-29, 07:37 PM

Bolded for emphasis. The second one (required spellcasting) is incorrect: you could use the spell-less ranger variant, with the wild shape alternative class feature, and you were a martial based MoMF from level 6 onwards (and a shape shifter from 5). And it really is doable in the 5e framework, thinking about it. Lets call is "shape shifter" class (and let somebody else come up with a cool name), give it mechanics similar to wildshape (over the levels: turn into creatures with more HD, and with stronger abilities), and give it for example subclasses 'infiltrater' (focussing on turning into other humanoids), and monsterman (more melee focus, turn into giants and the like).

You're speaking about the CW spell-less variant, or the CC spell-less variant that replaced your spellcasting with feats? While, for the purposes of proving you can make a "shapeshifter" it's irrelevant, for the purpose of proving it's a viable build, it does. And, to be honest, the first is...well, what to say, lacking. The second gives you feats...for a class feature you replaced. And in both cases, you still had your animal companion - a class feature I'm sure you won't consider in the hypothetical class.

As for the class itself - while you're trying to justify it into the paradigm, you're selling it short. So, your hypothetical shapechanger class can only transform into animals (in the same way Circle of the Moon does) and one other creature type based on its subclass (something I pretty much pre-empted). Your entire purpose is to do this - no less, no more. And it's obvious some subclasses will be better than others - in fact, something I considered was to give the hypothetical shapechanger class the ability to turn into other humanoids, because...well, at least you have some other purpose. (Else, why have a feature based on other humanoids when you can turn into frickin' dragons, celestials, fiends or fey?)

Thing is, it feels forced. The Barbarian Path of the Beast subclass has it as a touch of flavor, but adds a lot to a class that already offers pretty little - different damage types, different movement modes, different senses, and a rather solid use of its reaction. The Circle of the Moon Druid mostly enhances what the Druid already has (Wild Shape) and makes it a force to be reckoned (better animal forms, and then eventually humanoids AND elementals). Both have limited uses of these until latter levels, when it becomes an unlimited amount (and that's close to level 20, if not at level 20). So yeah - I just don't see it as a class, and instead see it better as a subclass. Racial-locked classes were attempted in SCAG; why not something like the Cabinet Trickster, to make Changelings turn more into Dopplegangers with some additional psychic abilities? Or give the Ranger the ability to shapeshift? To me, that's slightly easier than making a class that may feel unsatisfactory, in the same vein the PF Shifter was.

Don't want to derail the thread by focussing too much on a rarther obscure 3.5 class, but 1) you are right about Zceryll, and how powerful it is - but the class was totally viable without it, and was interesting because of combining the different vesitiges. The power level isn't a problem anyway, cause that changes anyway when adjusting things to 5e. And given how 5e handles summoning, this in't one of the most logical vestiges to use, if they would ever make the class (which I think they prolly wont, alas).

Again, it really shouldn't be too hard to make it a 5e class, thinking about it. Basic d8 simple weapons light armor 2 skills, cha and con saves, and from their get access to different vestiges at different levels, stronger later, and ability to combine them later. Replace 1/5 rounds abilities with short rest abilities, and refit abilities to the 5e framework. Subclasses could be pretty obvious: 1) dedicated binder (almost all prestige classes in ToM requirered you to choose a favoured vestige), 2) Anima mage (1/3 caster, compared to EK or AT in 5e), and maybe a Autmenter(focussing on the pact augmentation mechanic, seperating it from the class as a whole to avoid a too complicated class).

It really shouldn't be more complicated than a 5e artificer or warlock, that need to juggle infusions/invocations, spells, (optional) feats and other class features.

Well yes, it'll be more complicated. An Artificer has to choose half of the infusions it knows, and while it has a large list, more than half of the options come most likely from the Replicate Magic Item infusion, which grants them unique magic items to use. Warlock infusions are mostly focused - more spellcasting options, boosts to Eldritch Blast, boosts to one of the pacts. Neither of these is particularly complicated, even if it requires more book-keeping. (The Artificer also prepares spells, so there's that.)

But, these merely require choosing more class features, and they're mostly permanent until you gain a level. A hypothetical Binder essentially changes its subclass daily. Think about the Rogue replacing the first level of its subclass every day: one day the Rogue's a Thief, the other an Assassin, the next a Mastermind, then back to Thief. You can't change it until the next day, so you need to choose very carefully what's your focus for the entire day. Or, as a choice that reflects closely what you'd intend - the Barbarian's Totem Warrior. You're supposed to mix and match the options of your Totems as you gain levels: you don't have to go full Bear, or full Eagle, or full Tiger. You can, theoretically, mix and match stuff. The Totem Warrior's options are still locked in a way - this would make your options change daily. And they wouldn't be just like the Totem Warrior - they'd be closer to domains, since they define your bonus proficiencies and some of its traits.

I understand mix and match can be fun - it's half of the fun for those who like system mastery. But the system was designed towards simplicity: don't clutter the system with a lot of options. Right now, you can define which options don't work and which one work better, but the distance between optimization ceiling and floor is much, much smaller. This is the system's attractive, IMO. If you make a class whose entire purpose is redefining itself daily (with an ability check that essentially defines if you're going to have an extra flaw for the day or not), it'll be cool and interesting, but it'll be a nightmare for newbies who might find it cool, and will cause a reaction similar to the Truenamer (not exactly, since at least the mechanic would be solid and not broken, but in terms of feel because people will see the class needlessly complicated).

I'll give it to you: a Binder is far more viable than a hypothetical shapechanger class, but that doesn't mean it'll be viable. Reinventing yourself every day is amazing (and to a bigger extent than what a Wizard or Cleric or Druid can do), but how the mechanic works can make or break the class. And some options will be far better than others; far, far better.

WadeWay33

2020-03-29, 08:08 PM

Any sort of mystic beyond the UA they’ve produced. For some reason, it’s extremely difficult to make a Charles Xavier or a Magneto type character in 5e, at least from what I’ve seen.

Spriteless

2020-03-29, 08:56 PM

I liked the Warlord in 4e. One of its special abilities was just giving an ally an extra attack. So simple and straightforward, for 4th edition.

In general, 5th edition characters who make other 5th edition characters shine are either bards, or a caster who has cherry picked spells from their catalogue. The system could use more characters who share the spotlight. I mean, I like the Prism off DM's guild, but 3rd party homebrew still has a bad name from 3rd ed days.

Could also use a 3rd class that isn't flashy magicy supernatural woo woo, for those who play down to earth campaigns and want to get past 5th level. Warlord would fill that gap. As would a tinkerer who makes traps and tricks that aren't magic items.

Nagog

2020-03-29, 09:37 PM

A few things I feel are missing:

1. Summoner. I've brought it up many times on this and other forums, and so many folks are like "Duh, Shepherd Druid", but that's not what I'm getting at at all. The Summoner has a single summoned creature it can summon and upgrade with levels, and the summoner themselves has access to exclusively buff/support spells to augment/enhance the abilities of their summoned ally. The Summoned creature, rather than the Summoner, scales with player level, while the Summoner grows in less noticeably ways: spell progression most notably, other features would revolve around concepts like riding your summoned ally as a mount, summoning them faster, and the like.

2. Voodoo magic. Somewhere as a cross between Warlock and Druid. Heavily a mass debuff class, something like light armor, a d8 hit die, and full casting. The Druid spell list has many spells that fit this, but the druid chassis feels very wrong for implementing it, mostly due to the heavy flavor enforcement.

3. Martial class focused on Area Control. Open Hand monk is the closest one thus far, but I imagine it to be more AOE control rather than single target control spread out through multiple attacks.

4. A self-buffing martial class. Blood Hunter has the Mutant subclass that hits this hard and does it well, but in RAW it simply doesn't exist. Even if it were a Barbarian capable of casting buff spells on themselves during a rage, with a small selection of buff spells to choose from (perhaps 1/3 spell progression like EK and AT)

Man_Over_Game

2020-03-29, 10:12 PM

A few things I feel are missing:

...

3. Martial class focused on Area Control. Open Hand monk is the closest one thus far, but I imagine it to be more AOE control rather than single target control spread out through multiple attacks.

I feel like this is already covered with the Cavalier Fighter (using one of your extra feats for PAM) or Conquest Paladin.

Don't get me wrong, I'm a big advocate for more complex Martial options, I'm just not sure if 'AOE Control' is enough of an unfilled niche to be the only basis for a new subclass.

...
But, these merely require choosing more class features, and they're mostly permanent until you gain a level. A hypothetical Binder essentially changes its subclass daily. Think about the Rogue replacing the first level of its subclass every day: one day the Rogue's a Thief, the other an Assassin, the next a Mastermind, then back to Thief. You can't change it until the next day, so you need to choose very carefully what's your focus for the entire day. Or, as a choice that reflects closely what you'd intend - the Barbarian's Totem Warrior. You're supposed to mix and match the options of your Totems as you gain levels: you don't have to go full Bear, or full Eagle, or full Tiger. You can, theoretically, mix and match stuff. The Totem Warrior's options are still locked in a way - this would make your options change daily. And they wouldn't be just like the Totem Warrior - they'd be closer to domains, since they define your bonus proficiencies and some of its traits.

I understand mix and match can be fun - it's half of the fun for those who like system mastery. But the system was designed towards simplicity: don't clutter the system with a lot of options. Right now, you can define which options don't work and which one work better, but the distance between optimization ceiling and floor is much, much smaller. This is the system's attractive, IMO. If you make a class whose entire purpose is redefining itself daily (with an ability check that essentially defines if you're going to have an extra flaw for the day or not), it'll be cool and interesting, but it'll be a nightmare for newbies who might find it cool, and will cause a reaction similar to the Truenamer (not exactly, since at least the mechanic would be solid and not broken, but in terms of feel because people will see the class needlessly complicated).

A long while back, me and some folks on the forum were looking into ways to make the Druid's Wildshape easier and more versatile. The solution we came up with was just a series of "chassis" and "modules" that you chose from.

For example, you could pick a Stout form, which had doubled HP and medium AC and speed, or a Hunter form with medium HP but doubled AC bonus and doubled speed.

Everything was based around ratios (x1 or x2), and the base values were based on your level. Halve your HP, speed and AC bonus if you chose a flying creature (so a Stout Flying creature would have x1 HP, x1/2 speed and x1/2 AC bonus).

I think something similar could be done to make a versatile shapeshifting mechanic without it being much rule keeping. You don't need special use to determine how much a grappling attack costs, as long as it functions the same as your Prone attack, or your Savage Attack (which is just an extra attack if the condition is met). Make the conditions for each benefit type to be incredibly simple and limited, and the end result will still be simple (but versatile).

Forechosen

2020-03-29, 10:24 PM

Personally, I'd love a completely normal, relatively un-skilled, un-trained - yet still heroic class.

Sort of like a few Disney heroes - like Belle or Snow White. Not an exceptional fighter or a brilliant wizard, just a (relatively) ordinary person who *somehow* manages to save the day with the help of their friends.

No idea how it would work, as of course you'd still want the character to level up and be effective. I just *like* the idea of not being great at any magical or martial skill at all - yet being thrown in to that world, and somehow succeeding.

Perhaps as they level up they could get bonuses to 'luck' and 'courage' and 'beating the odds, even though they've got one hundred times less skill than their Fighter companion' - I have no idea!

Man_Over_Game

2020-03-29, 11:57 PM

T.G. Oskar

2020-03-30, 01:38 AM

IA long while back, me and some folks on the forum were looking into ways to make the Druid's Wildshape easier and more versatile. The solution we came up with was just a series of "chassis" and "modules" that you chose from.

For example, you could pick a Stout form, which had doubled HP and medium AC and speed, or a Hunter form with medium HP but doubled AC bonus and doubled speed.

Everything was based around ratios (x1 or x2), and the base values were based on your level. Halve your HP, speed and AC bonus if you chose a flying creature (so a Stout Flying creature would have x1 HP, x1/2 speed and x1/2 AC bonus).

I think something similar could be done to make a versatile shapeshifting mechanic without it being much rule keeping. You don't need special use to determine how much a grappling attack costs, as long as it functions the same as your Prone attack, or your Savage Attack (which is just an extra attack if the condition is met). Make the conditions for each benefit type to be incredibly simple and limited, and the end result will still be simple (but versatile).

Templates?

I honestly thought of something similar, but for the Beastmaster. Divide the creatures you have access to into Small, Medium or Large. (Yes, in essence, you can't have a Large animal companion, but there's that). Then, you'd have "roles" - Harrier (Small creatures with hit & run tactics, with something like Sneak Attack for extra damage), Mauler (Medium or Large creature with increased damage potential) and Guardian (mostly for Large creatures meant to be used as tanks). You chose one qualifying animal companion, added the Template. That allowed you to access the traits you'd like about beasts while making them more useful - a Harrier/Eagle could deliver a "fly-by" attack dealing some extra damage, or a Harrier/Cat, while a Mauler/Boar had the Charge option while the Mauler/Panther had the Pounce option.

That said, the issue I'd have with a shapechanger class (contrary to a subclass) is how it'd fit the paradigm of class design. Most of the mechanics that hypothetical class would have are obvious - most likely a d8, Str/Con as saving throw bonuses, probably not enough weapon and armor proficiencies, etc. However, I mean how the class would be designed per se. For example - it's obvious the class' main schtick would be something akin to Wild Shape, but...how many times would you allow it per day? What would you consider being the "base" forms? See, if you consider Animals as the "base" forms, then what would happen if your character concept doesn't fit that theme? What explains that the class has to allow you to transform into animals as a basis? (Druids have that explanation because they are guardians of nature, and thus, they evoke the traits of animals, who serve as guardians too; it doesn't explain why they can't transform into plants as well, though.) What other traits do they have besides transforming into animals that all kinds of shapechangers would have? (For example: would you consider as a class feature that they eventually become immune to critical hits?) From there, you'd have to choose what would be their subclasses, and have enough choices to merit making them a class, rather than a subclass.

The main issue I see here, which is what you're trying to address, is how their main feature works, and how that can be balanced. I presume your conception is somehow what WotC is doing now with summons and the Beastmaster's animal companions - have stat blocks that have balanced mechanics, fluff them as "spirits" or somesuch, and then allow the player to give them the shape they want. I presume what you intend is to have all these stat blocks that allow you to assume a variety of forms, and then have subclasses mostly add traits that certain creature types would have (immunities, resistances, attacks, reactions, etc.) If so...other than addressing what would be the "base" forms, it could work, but it'd be a nightmare to construct, and I still feel it'd look like a cop out. (Still much better than what it stands now; though, for what its worth, I don't see an issue with Wild Shape and what you can assume.)

Man_Over_Game

2020-03-30, 02:38 AM

Templates?

I honestly thought of something similar, but for the Beastmaster. Divide the creatures you have access to into Small, Medium or Large. (Yes, in essence, you can't have a Large animal companion, but there's that). Then, you'd have "roles" - Harrier (Small creatures with hit & run tactics, with something like Sneak Attack for extra damage), Mauler (Medium or Large creature with increased damage potential) and Guardian (mostly for Large creatures meant to be used as tanks). You chose one qualifying animal companion, added the Template. That allowed you to access the traits you'd like about beasts while making them more useful - a Harrier/Eagle could deliver a "fly-by" attack dealing some extra damage, or a Harrier/Cat, while a Mauler/Boar had the Charge option while the Mauler/Panther had the Pounce option.

That said, the issue I'd have with a shapechanger class (contrary to a subclass) is how it'd fit the paradigm of class design. Most of the mechanics that hypothetical class would have are obvious - most likely a d8, Str/Con as saving throw bonuses, probably not enough weapon and armor proficiencies, etc. However, I mean how the class would be designed per se. For example - it's obvious the class' main schtick would be something akin to Wild Shape, but...how many times would you allow it per day? What would you consider being the "base" forms? See, if you consider Animals as the "base" forms, then what would happen if your character concept doesn't fit that theme? What explains that the class has to allow you to transform into animals as a basis? (Druids have that explanation because they are guardians of nature, and thus, they evoke the traits of animals, who serve as guardians too; it doesn't explain why they can't transform into plants as well, though.) What other traits do they have besides transforming into animals that all kinds of shapechangers would have? (For example: would you consider as a class feature that they eventually become immune to critical hits?) From there, you'd have to choose what would be their subclasses, and have enough choices to merit making them a class, rather than a subclass.

The main issue I see here, which is what you're trying to address, is how their main feature works, and how that can be balanced. I presume your conception is somehow what WotC is doing now with summons and the Beastmaster's animal companions - have stat blocks that have balanced mechanics, fluff them as "spirits" or somesuch, and then allow the player to give them the shape they want. I presume what you intend is to have all these stat blocks that allow you to assume a variety of forms, and then have subclasses mostly add traits that certain creature types would have (immunities, resistances, attacks, reactions, etc.) If so...other than addressing what would be the "base" forms, it could work, but it'd be a nightmare to construct, and I still feel it'd look like a cop out. (Still much better than what it stands now; though, for what its worth, I don't see an issue with Wild Shape and what you can assume.)

Yes, TEMPLATES! Had a brain fart there and couldn't think of the word.

Honestly, having a versatile template system with multiple moving parts is complex enough. For subclasses, you'd just need to follow the design theme of something like Wizards. For the most part, all Wizards work the same; Subclasses for them define a specialty, not a role, power or mechanic. Even a Bladesinger is just a Concentration-based Wizard that handles melee combat better than the rest. And that works, because Wizards are complex enough with the versatility and viability of their base mechanic (their spell list and book).

So follow suit. Say the base chassis allows you to shift your humanoid body into having mutations applied to it, only being able to choose a mutation once per Short Rest (so if you pick to have Super Strength, you can't choose to swap to Super Speed until you take a Short Rest).

One subclass allows you to add elemental forms, changing entire aspects of your playstyle on a whim (like the Investitude spells).
One subclass allows you to shift into shadow forms, giving you benefits to afflicting enemies and utilizing stealth effects, while also increasing hit chance and becoming invisible.
One subclass allows you to turn into a humanoid you're looking at for an hour, keeping your default stats from mutations but allowing you to gain bonuses when your appearance is distracting (like fighting a creature while your "original" is against them and in view, or if the "original" is someone you're fighting).

It could even be something like "Shadow Form adds 10 feet to your base speed and +1 to your base AC bonus. You have proficiency in the Stealth skill. You can move an additional amount of movement equal to half of your speed during your turn, as long as you spend that movement moving towards a creature that you will make a melee attack against during this turn." It doesn't prevent you from being a Bulky Warrior form, but it does make you better at doing things related to shadow-y stuff.

Morphic tide

2020-03-30, 03:29 AM

With regards to Vestiges being problematic for 5e, think of it as occupying the possibility space of full-list preperation like Clerics and Druids, and work around that. Most of the same concerns apply, and it respects allowances for re-binding and multiple simultaneous Vestiges. Acts quite similarly to the Mystic's Disciplines, where one selection gives a variety of abilities, but related in a looser fashion. Mixing the two gets weird, but the degree of mechanical variety spells carry is greater than what Vestiges have done historically. It need not be subclass level distinctions implemented. The "big sell" being a floating Proficiency or two is certainly interesting, but not necessarily overpowered, especially given how much of that there are already spells to bypass.

---

With regards to a shapeshifter class, the underlying problems are rather direct mechanical issues with how shapeshifting is handled in 5e. My own suggestion is in limiting how much can be added to your base statblock instead of having the functionality be replacement, with some form of "slots" for pushing beyond your default and the "free" allowances regarding natural attacks, movement modes, AC and such, heavily keying off Monk for these at-will benefits. Archetypes then focus on increased applications of those slots and better imitating particular enemy behaviors, such as one dedicated to emulating Legendary actions and resistances as the "area damage" and line-holding option, while another may focus on being a chimera that can swap out pieces and outright make things up rather than being left to the combinations of effects the world around you has to offer.

---

Expanding on Disciplines is easy. They're derived from the 3.5 Ardent's Mantles, and are a list-based feature, so they're quite expandable. The key thing to do is to split the subsystem, dividing Disciplines according to party roles, and focus on different takes on the role. For an example of distinction, the class I'd base the canned gish upon would be the Lurk in its capacity as skillmonkey-with-subsystem, while the Mystic would turn into a support manifester, offering great plot powers and considerable buffs, but simply lacking save-or-suck, blasting and personal transformation. All varieties of in-your-face murder then go to the Wilder, whether it be becoming a bigger, meaner murderbeast or launching stupid amounts of direct damage, alongside overlapping combat shutdown Disciplines with the Lurk.

---

Adding a new Martial is something I'd love to do. I'd go with doing stuff on Hit Dice, as it's a resource almost untouched in the rules and we lack a healer rooted in low-level mechanics like the Fighter and Barbarian are. More of a forceful taskmaster vibe than previous versions of the concept, such as a lot of 4e Leaders. Baseline, the healing would only be the standard Hit Dice dragged into combat, as well as being able to have them be spent for various purposes. Possibly lean on the Bounded Accuracy rules with the "Warlord" adding their Charisma to cover for rolling a hit die instead of a d20 for some kinds of task. Immediate archetypes being a "sawbone" to make Short Rest recover of hit dice themselves open up, as well as a self-harming berserker flavor.

---

The task of making a balanced summoning-focused class has two forks: Mass summons, and having one big summon. The former needs mass combat rules to "batch" attacks into gradual defenses to cut down on rolls and handle blocks of creatures moving at the same time. The latter is vastly easier, as it is a matter of having the primary character be an external battery for a semi-disposable creature. Said large creature ought to be a bit of a glass cannon, as it receives considerable healing from the primary character and its death is not likely to be campaign-ending. Doing both in one class has other issues, mostly regarding how you end up with such a large number of health totals to track (though again, rules to batch things into gradual defenses can help a lot).

Waazraath

2020-03-30, 03:49 AM

*snip*

Well, to be honest I just wanted to answer the question in the OP, and state what I miss - I wasn't planning to design the homebrew for the options I mention.

Having said that:
For the shapeshifter:
- I meant the CC variant (free feat at 4, much more useful)
- I don't get what the specifics of the 3.5 base class (animal companion) has to do with it (though if you really want to make a thing out of that: there were plenty of alternate class features for that as well). A shapeshifter is a fantasy staple, you mentioned several yourself (Hulk, Jeckly and Hyde), but there's Beorn from LotR, the archetypical wherewolf, etc etc. It's a character concept. There's no support. It doen't need to be exactly as MoMF, WarShaper or Bearwarrior (though they definitely could be used as base, or for inspiration) these are examples.
- there is nothing 'forced' about it in this way. We can hypothise endlessly about possible balance problems, but it doesn't make too much sense to me without the class actullly existing. I don't see any reason why a balanced version couldn't be made.

For the Binder:
- of course the class would be adjusted to 5e in a 5e version. So yes, the more complicated abilities would be dropped, there might be less vestiges, etc. But the core concept wouldn't need to be more complicated than the complicated classes that we already have. If you make the level 1 vestiges without trap options, the floor aint that low (and less low I'd argue than a Sorcerer or Bard that picked the wrong spells at level 1).
- Take Amon for example: remake it for 5e into a 3d6 15 ft breath weapon 1/short rest, a bonus action horn attack for 1d6+str, and darkvision. Maybe raise breathweapon damage at certain levels (5, 10, 15).
- And again, "some options will be far better than others; far, far better." --> you are arguing a non-existing class is inbalanced. That is a bit weird, cause it doesn't exist, and arguing this system is impossible to balance seems a bit big claim to me - especially since it was a decently balanced class in 3.x, which was a helluvalot more difficult to balance than 5e.

Dr. Cliché

2020-03-30, 09:37 AM

Waazraath

2020-03-30, 10:10 AM

Regarding Shapeshifters, I'd like to see a shapeshifter class that focuses on a single form or theme (wolves, bears, birds etc.), which gets gradually stronger as you level up. As opposed to stuff like the current Moon Druid where any theme has to be swiftly abandoned as the power of beast shapes don't scale.
Wolf --> Dire Wolf --> Er... guess I'm a Dinosaur-Druid now. :smallconfused:

I understand the complain about Moon Druid, so yes, that would be nice. Though I also could see an option where you get stronger self-alterations (natural attacks, tentacles, wings, more AC), or stronger forms (humanoids, giants, dragons, with a HD max, or just a few fixed forms). On the samen note (thematic focus): I also miss that in the caster department. It's really a shame 5e didn't continue on the path that late 3.5 took, with the beguiler, warmage, dread necromacer - powerful, versatile spellcasters but with a very specific theme, and different strengths and weaknesses. The generalistic approach leads to too much the same spells be prefered (fireball, fly, invisibility, shield, absorb elements, banishment, misty step, animate object, wall of force, etc. etc.) regardless of subclass / school focus.

Nagog

2020-03-30, 10:31 AM

I feel like this is already covered with the Cavalier Fighter (using one of your extra feats for PAM) or Conquest Paladin.

Don't get me wrong, I'm a big advocate for more complex Martial options, I'm just not sure if 'AOE Control' is enough of an unfilled niche to be the only basis for a new subclass.

The cavalier is interesting to be sure, but it's reliance on melee attacks for it's class features limits it's full potential. Reach weapons and a mount would definitely help things, but considering they have no way to acquire a mount without the DM just handing it to them, the build is limited to at max 5 enemies, if you have maxed Strength and use two weapon fighting and action surge to mark 5 enemies, and if they damage a target other than you (let's face it, you're in melee distance and just hit a ton of folks, so they're gonna target you), then you get to attack all those that fulfill these very specific conditions as a bonus action one time on your next turn. At 20th level, you may use your full attack action and bonus action to mark 5, and then if (heavy if) they all fulfill these requirements, you can get a total of 9 attacks next round, if you can manage to stay in melee range of 5 targets and none of them target you and none of them miss. A single Fireball will deal more damage in one round to these folks than your 2 rounds of attacks if they're that close to one another, and Spike Growth is far more effective at locking enemies down.
Another downfall of the Cavalier is it's reliance on PAM and Sentinel to really shine as a crowd controller. You even get part of Sentinel as a class feature, but not the parts you really want. PAM and Sentinel on any other build gives you about the same capabilities, and tacking that on a Storm Herald Barbarian lets you spread the damage out more than a Cavalier, without DM favor or heavy investment. If the Cavalier's marking and follow up attack were opened up to ranged attacks, I'd be far more interested.

Also I'd argue that Paladins aren't really a martial class. If I count them in this mix, Rangers would take the cake for area control martial by nature of casting Spike Growth or Ensnaring Strike or similar spells.

Dr. Cliché

2020-03-30, 10:43 AM

I understand the complain about Moon Druid, so yes, that would be nice. Though I also could see an option where you get stronger self-alterations (natural attacks, tentacles, wings, more AC), or stronger forms (humanoids, giants, dragons, with a HD max, or just a few fixed forms).

I think there's a lot that could be done with shapeshifters, to be honest. There are so many different versions in both myth and popular culture.

At the very least, it would be nice to see the number of shapeshifting-classes expanded a bit. The Warlock seems like a prime candidate for a shapeshifting subclass (and/or a shapeshifting item - like the enchanted pelts or belts skinchangers use to transform).

Ranger seems like another possibility, to keep some of the nature theme of the druid but focus it more on combat rather than spellcasting.

I also miss that in the caster department. It's really a shame 5e didn't continue on the path that late 3.5 took, with the beguiler, warmage, dread necromacer - powerful, versatile spellcasters but with a very specific theme, and different strengths and weaknesses. The generalistic approach leads to too much the same spells be prefered (fireball, fly, invisibility, shield, absorb elements, banishment, misty step, animate object, wall of force, etc. etc.) regardless of subclass / school focus.

I'd definitely agree there. I think many of the current wizard subclasses are just too broad or have too little interaction with their supposed theme. As an example, what benefit does a Transmuter get that makes Transmutation spells more appealing? If anything, it seems more like a weird alchemist than a wizard focused on Transmutation. The Necromancer is a little more in-theme, yet the only Necromancy spell it actually supports is Animate Dead.

I think a big part of the problem with the whole subclass mechanic is that there's no sacrifice involved. With a class you can add additional features and balance it by removing existing ones, in order to make the class much more focused on its theme or specialisation. But with subclasses, there's generally no removing of core class abilities, so you're much more limited in terms of what you can add, as you can't touch the base class.

GandalfTheWhite

2020-03-30, 01:40 PM

Forgive me, but no. The Stone Sorcerer was the attempt at a 5e Sword Mage: https://twitter.com/knuckleofvecna/status/760156564434980865

Ohhhhhhh, that’s why it seemed so familiar.

DracoKnight

2020-03-30, 01:46 PM

Ohhhhhhh, that’s why it seemed so familiar.

Yes, that would be why.

Man_Over_Game

2020-03-30, 03:08 PM

The cavalier is interesting to be sure, but it's reliance on melee attacks for it's class features limits it's full potential. Reach weapons and a mount would definitely help things, but considering they have no way to acquire a mount without the DM just handing it to them, the build is limited to at max 5 enemies, if you have maxed Strength and use two weapon fighting and action surge to mark 5 enemies, and if they damage a target other than you (let's face it, you're in melee distance and just hit a ton of folks, so they're gonna target you), then you get to attack all those that fulfill these very specific conditions as a bonus action one time on your next turn. At 20th level, you may use your full attack action and bonus action to mark 5, and then if (heavy if) they all fulfill these requirements, you can get a total of 9 attacks next round, if you can manage to stay in melee range of 5 targets and none of them target you and none of them miss. A single Fireball will deal more damage in one round to these folks than your 2 rounds of attacks if they're that close to one another, and Spike Growth is far more effective at locking enemies down.
Another downfall of the Cavalier is it's reliance on PAM and Sentinel to really shine as a crowd controller. You even get part of Sentinel as a class feature, but not the parts you really want. PAM and Sentinel on any other build gives you about the same capabilities, and tacking that on a Storm Herald Barbarian lets you spread the damage out more than a Cavalier, without DM favor or heavy investment. If the Cavalier's marking and follow up attack were opened up to ranged attacks, I'd be far more interested.

Also I'd argue that Paladins aren't really a martial class. If I count them in this mix, Rangers would take the cake for area control martial by nature of casting Spike Growth or Ensnaring Strike or similar spells.

If I understand correctly, the summarized version of what you're saying is:

Cavalier doesn't deal enough area damage or denial, despite having a 10ft reach and several benefits to keeping enemies locked down within that area.
Conquest is too magical to be considered a valid choice, despite only being a 1/3 caster.

What kind of AoE Control are you imagining here? Some kind of bomb-thrower?

Morty

2020-03-30, 04:30 PM

Not intended as a mean to plug, but my Prestige Options Homebrew was designed around addressing that exact issue, while also fixing any multiclassing concerns from doing so.

It has notes on justification for each option too, so it's more than just "some guy on the internet said these were cool" if you decide to present it to your DM. Link is in the signature, if it interests you. I've spent a lot more time on it than is probably healthy, and I still update it whenever I get Inspiration for a new option (most recent being con-based Sorcerers).

This isn't bad, but it's still very limited - you can't play a non-spellcasting fighter who focuses on intelligence. Or a finesse fighter who doesn't use a rapier. And it shouldn't be necessary.

As far as shapeshifting goes, it's definitely a better basis for a class than quite a few actual D&D classes. Druids and rangers could both be replaced by a shape-shifting class that also has some versatile nature-themed magic powers. Druids are bloated with features, even with animal companions go, and rangers are... rangers.

Man_Over_Game

2020-03-30, 05:40 PM

This isn't bad, but it's still very limited - you can't play a non-spellcasting fighter who focuses on intelligence.

There were a couple ways you could do that:

Way of the Disciplined Eye (Monk)
You can take the Monk, using your Intelligence modifier in place of your Wisdom modifier for your Monk features.
Requirement: The only Monk subclasses available to you are the Ways of the Sun Soul, Four Elements, and the Long Death. Additionally, you cannot have more Wizard levels than you have Monk levels.

Thug (Rogue) [leveling into the Inquisitive subclass]
Your Sneak Attack feature no longer requires a Finesse or Ranged weapon. Instead, it now requires a Melee weapon. Your Sneak Attack die is now a 1d4 instead of a 1d6, but it can now apply to more than one attack per turn. You start with proficiency in Medium Armor and Martial Weapons.

PoeticallyPsyco

2020-03-30, 07:17 PM

You know what I miss? Incarnum from 3.5, and Warlord from 4E.

Incarnum was a magic subsystem based on channeling souls into semi-permanent magic-item-like "soulmelds". You'd shape your soulmelds at the start of each day, and they mostly granted at-will benefits, but you also had a pool of personal soul magic ("essentia") that you could allocate between your melds (and the occasional class feature or feat) from turn to turn to make them stronger. As you leveled up, you got to "bind" a couple of your soulmelds more directly to your soul, giving you extra benefits. It was a really cool subsystem that was pretty much unique, and did a good job of balancing flexibility and power despite being basically at-will.

Lack of Warlord is a far more common complaint, but I still feel like martials should have the ability to support effectively. It's a niche that's crying out to be filled, and could go a long way towards making martials more interesting at higher levels. Yes you can do it a little bit with Battlemaster or Purple Dragon Knight; no it's still lacking too much in uses/per day to be viable as a primary shtick.

Morty

2020-03-31, 11:30 AM

There were a couple ways you could do that:

Way of the Disciplined Eye (Monk)
You can take the Monk, using your Intelligence modifier in place of your Wisdom modifier for your Monk features.
Requirement: The only Monk subclasses available to you are the Ways of the Sun Soul, Four Elements, and the Long Death. Additionally, you cannot have more Wizard levels than you have Monk levels.

Thug (Rogue) [leveling into the Inquisitive subclass]
Your Sneak Attack feature no longer requires a Finesse or Ranged weapon. Instead, it now requires a Melee weapon. Your Sneak Attack die is now a 1d4 instead of a 1d6, but it can now apply to more than one attack per turn. You start with proficiency in Medium Armor and Martial Weapons.

I said a fighter, not a monk or rogue. I don't want to put down your houserules, but they do little to address the base issue.

Man_Over_Game

2020-03-31, 12:08 PM

I said a fighter, not a monk or rogue. I don't want to put down your houserules, but they do little to address the base issue.

I guess I mean that the next step seems to identify what an Intelligence-based Fighter that doesn't use magic would look like.

To me, that comes off as a Sherlock Holmes brawler, one that outsmarts you as he outmaneuvers you. An Inquisitive Rogue would fit the thematics nicely, especially once you turn it into a Thug. Or the Intelligence Monk, being wise over perceptive.

But you have something else in mind. It's not about a theme or a character concept, but a mechanic. It HAS to be Fighter, so it's the Fighter mechanics that matter.

My question is, how?

Zetakya

2020-03-31, 12:24 PM

I guess I mean that the next step seems to identify what an Intelligence-based Fighter that doesn't use magic would look like.

Obligatory: https://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0808.html

D&D_Fan

2020-03-31, 12:28 PM

Maybe a CON based class where your abilities rely on Constitution.
Maybe a chef, or Marathon Runner type class.
Could also be a Blood Mage class.

Man_Over_Game

2020-03-31, 12:37 PM

Obligatory: https://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0808.html
That's kinda what I imagined with a Strength-based Inquisitive. Expertise in Athletics and Investigation, proficient in History. Scans the environment and abuses it for a win.

Could also be a Blood Mage class.

That is one of the things that is needed. A lot of the stuff mentioned on the thread could be done with some minor majiggering of feats, attributes, and mechanics, or even just a loose theme concept.

But a Blood Mage would definitely need its own mechanics, and might even go so far as to need a full class.

If there was a "Blood Hunter" class released, I'd imagine it'd be a "Bloodletter" class with "Hunter" being one of the subclasses (along with Mage, Healer, Summoner, etc). Make it like a Cleric, where your core mechanics (Blood Magic) is universal for everyone, but your unique Blood Magic theme and playstyle are defined at level 1.

Otherwise, Blood Magic could be a Barbarian, Sorcerer or Druid subclass without too much work.

micahaphone

2020-03-31, 03:24 PM

I've seen this homebrew blood mage/fighter thrown around, I have no idea how to judge its balance.

https://drive.google.com/file/d/1NWkyKuXbOwlHFa07DqrXUE1xV2J5u_9-/view

It's a half caster vaguely like paladin, but without multiattack. Instead the get beserker's retaliation at 5.

Feel quite weird to me, but it's certainly interesting.

Evaar

2020-03-31, 04:02 PM

Morty

2020-03-31, 04:09 PM

I guess I mean that the next step seems to identify what an Intelligence-based Fighter that doesn't use magic would look like.

To me, that comes off as a Sherlock Holmes brawler, one that outsmarts you as he outmaneuvers you. An Inquisitive Rogue would fit the thematics nicely, especially once you turn it into a Thug. Or the Intelligence Monk, being wise over perceptive.

But you have something else in mind. It's not about a theme or a character concept, but a mechanic. It HAS to be Fighter, so it's the Fighter mechanics that matter.

My question is, how?

It's not about any particular class' mechanics. It's about how the interaction between attributes and classes encourages focusing on one pre-selected attribute. Maybe two.

Artemis Entreri

He uses a sword and a dagger. No reason to do that. If you have the Dual Wielder feat, use two longswords. If you don't, then you can't actually attack with both.

Also his sword is a longsword, so he's pumping Strength as well as Dexterity, because he only wears light armor.

His sword is described as a "sabre" in the novels, which is a type of weapon D&D has rarely if ever acknowledged. In 5E, you could take a rapier, describe it as a sabre and change the damage type to slashing on the off-chance it comes up. But it just goes to show that the equipment list is pretty paper-thin.

JackPhoenix

2020-03-31, 04:34 PM

Artemis Entreri

He uses a sword and a dagger. No reason to do that. If you have the Dual Wielder feat, use two longswords. If you don't, then you can't actually attack with both.

Also his sword is a longsword, so he's pumping Strength as well as Dexterity, because he only wears light armor.

He's a rogue, so he needs a dagger (or another finesse weapon, but a dagger has an advantage of being throwable in a pinch) if he want Sneak Attack, assuming it's really a longsword. And longsword has better damage than dagger once the sneak attack has been made. Why longsword and not rapier, then? His (presumably) magic longsword is sufficiently better than any rapier he's found that it's not worth the switch. Also, the dagger definitely is magical, so the same principle may apply there.

Evaar

2020-03-31, 04:34 PM

It's not about any particular class' mechanics. It's about how the interaction between attributes and classes encourages focusing on one pre-selected attribute. Maybe two.

His sword is described as a "sabre" in the novels, which is a type of weapon D&D has rarely if ever acknowledged. In 5E, you could take a rapier, describe it as a sabre and change the damage type to slashing on the off-chance it comes up. But it just goes to show that the equipment list is pretty paper-thin.

I haven't been keeping up, but according to the wikia I found he has a fancy new weapon called Charon's Claw which is a +4 keen smoking longsword. I actually went to look it up because I was pretty sure he used a longsword but wasn't 100%.

Morty

2020-03-31, 04:37 PM

I haven't been keeping up, but according to the wikia I found he has a fancy new weapon called Charon's Claw which is a +4 keen smoking longsword. I actually went to look it up because I was pretty sure he used a longsword but wasn't 100%.

I'm going off the first Icewind Dale novels from ages ago, so my information might be out of date. Or maybe a longsword is just how his weapon is depicted by the rules.

sithlordnergal

2020-03-31, 04:52 PM

Da Best Archer: Technically it wasn't disallowed by RAW until some changes were made specifically to disallow it, though it was never RAI

Basically you take Shaprshooter, Tavern Brawler, Heavy Weapon Master, and a Barbarian/Rogue split to smash people in the face with the Longbow for a -10 to hit/+20 damage. Technically, sneak attack still only requires that the "Attack must use a Finesse or a ranged weapon.", and I can't find anything saying that a weapon loses all of their properties if you use it as an improvised weapon...so you might, might, have a very shaky, not very convincing argument that you can smack someone upside the head with a longbow and still get sneak attack. But honestly, I doubt it would be worth the effort.

It is a hilarious build though, absolutely the dumbest thing you could think of.

Man_Over_Game

2020-03-31, 05:07 PM

It's not about any particular class' mechanics. It's about how the interaction between attributes and classes encourages focusing on one pre-selected attribute. Maybe two.

I see.

I could see something like that be a slight modification of the Battlemaster. You get one more Superiority Die, but your Maneuver Save DC uses your Intelligence or Wisdom bonus instead of your Strength or Dexterity, and your Superiority Dice are one size smaller respectively for all levels (so they start as a d6 at level 3, ending as a d10 at level 18).

Starbuck_II

2020-03-31, 05:43 PM

What I feel is missing:
1) A magical equivalent of Barbarian's rage. A lot of characters in fictions have those moments where they "enter into a trance" or "get possessed by a legendary spirit" where they get OP magical powers for some limited time. To be fair, that's already possible with a level 20 paladin, or some high level sorcerer, but that's kind of late...
2) Character classes defined by an artefact. In fiction, an absurd number of characters get their power from a magical sword / ring / whatever. The easiest way to include it would be to make a warlock patron for it. [In fact, I'm sure there are plenty of community-made warlock patron that do exactly that]
3) "Pokemon trainer". Well, not specifically with pokemon, but 5e doesn't have an equivalent of the 3.X animal companion stronger than its master.

Assimar Racials work, but that is a race rage not a class based rage.

So, like a Warlock rage?
Like a subclass like the Incendent:
Your patron is the very essence of magic itself.
Expanded Spell list:
1st: Magic Missile, Sleep
2nd: Scorching Ray, Mirror Image
3rd: Haste, Fireball
4th: Fire Shield, Banishment
5th: Circe of Power, Disintegrate,

Start at 1st:
Eldritch Awakening: You are able to bring forth great magical potential into your being. You can enter as a bonus action.
While Awakened, you gain many benefits:
-You gain advantage on Con checks and Con saving throws (this is to help concentration)
-You can ignore one energy type of resistance (not immunity) chose when activating Eldritch Awakening among the choices while the ability lasts: Fire, Cold, Lightning
-You gain a bonus to spell damage (including cantrips) while this lasts. This bonus start at +1 and increases by 1 every 4 levels.
This ability lasts 6 rounds, but ends early if you are knocked unconscious. It also ends if you haven't attacked a hostile creature since the end of your last turn.
This ability can be used 1 + 1/2 (minimum 1) your level in uses/day. This recharges with a long rest.

Starting at 6th: Magical bursting
While in Eldritch Awakening, Once/turn, reroll 1's and 2's on your spell (including cantrips) damage die once, taking the higher amount.

Starting at 10th: Determined Mind
You can't be charmed or Frightened while Eldritch Awakening is ongoing.

Starting at 14th: Relentless Way
If dropped to 0 hps, you can make a DC 10 Con saving throw. If you succeed, you drop to 1 hp instead.
If you are Eldritch Awakened, the DC drops by your Con Mod.
Each time you use this feature, after the first, the DC increases by 5. After a long rest, the DC resets to 0.

I liked the Warlord in 4e. One of its special abilities was just giving an ally an extra attack. So simple and straightforward, for 4th edition.

In general, 5th edition characters who make other 5th edition characters shine are either bards, or a caster who has cherry picked spells from their catalogue. The system could use more characters who share the spotlight. I mean, I like the Prism off DM's guild, but 3rd party homebrew still has a bad name from 3rd ed days.

Could also use a 3rd class that isn't flashy magicy supernatural woo woo, for those who play down to earth campaigns and want to get past 5th level. Warlord would fill that gap. As would a tinkerer who makes traps and tricks that aren't magic items.

So, like a 3.5 E Marshal converted to 5E?

Evaar

2020-03-31, 07:01 PM

I'm going off the first Icewind Dale novels from ages ago, so my information might be out of date. Or maybe a longsword is just how his weapon is depicted by the rules.

But regardless of houseruling up a slashing damage rapier, my point was there's no good reason to use an offhand dagger. I mean I guess you could argue he just got a really good dagger, so he's acceptable the non-optimal offhand in order to get the magic effect. But you can't build a character so that rapier/dagger or longsword/shortsword is your optimal fighting style.

Zetakya

2020-03-31, 07:38 PM

But regardless of houseruling up a slashing damage rapier, my point was there's no good reason to use an offhand dagger. I mean I guess you could argue he just got a really good dagger, so he's acceptable the non-optimal offhand in order to get the magic effect. But you can't build a character so that rapier/dagger or longsword/shortsword is your optimal fighting style.

I just mentioned this in passing over in the Hexblade thread, but you definitely can; you can only Sneak Attack once per turn, so you're better off using an offhand weapon for the Sneak Attack and a Higher Damage main hand, especially as a Fight/Rogue MC.

JackPhoenix

2020-04-01, 08:03 AM

But regardless of houseruling up a slashing damage rapier, my point was there's no good reason to use an offhand dagger. I mean I guess you could argue he just got a really good dagger, so he's acceptable the non-optimal offhand in order to get the magic effect. But you can't build a character so that rapier/dagger or longsword/shortsword is your optimal fighting style.

You can't build a character with TWF as optimal fighting style, period. Everyone is better off with either ranged weapon, polearm or a shield, depends on what they aim for. But 'not optimal' doesn't mean it doesn't work.

Tanarii

2020-04-01, 09:48 AM

But regardless of houseruling up a slashing damage rapier, my point was there's no good reason to use an offhand dagger. I mean I guess you could argue he just got a really good dagger, so he's acceptable the non-optimal offhand in order to get the magic effect. But you can't build a character so that rapier/dagger or longsword/shortsword is your optimal fighting style.
If it's a character based off the (just terrible) forgotten realms books, two points:

- those characters are supposed to be based off AD&D, but break the rules all the time. So technically they aren't a character concept that doesn't work. They're a flawed representation of the archetype that is the AD&D class.

- TWF rules were very different AD&D. And 3e. And 4e.

Man_Over_Game

2020-04-01, 01:45 PM

I just mentioned this in passing over in the Hexblade thread, but you definitely can; you can only Sneak Attack once per turn, so you're better off using an offhand weapon for the Sneak Attack and a Higher Damage main hand, especially as a Fight/Rogue MC.

Both weapons have to be Light, or neither of them do (if you have the feat), in 5e.

That means two Shortswords or two Rapiers. You can do a Rapier and a Shortsword with the feat, but there's no reason you couldn't use two Rapiers then for +1 more damage.

Personally, if given the option, I like two Whips. The 1d4 doesn't matter when you have Sneak Attack.

Morty

2020-04-01, 03:56 PM

But regardless of houseruling up a slashing damage rapier, my point was there's no good reason to use an offhand dagger. I mean I guess you could argue he just got a really good dagger, so he's acceptable the non-optimal offhand in order to get the magic effect. But you can't build a character so that rapier/dagger or longsword/shortsword is your optimal fighting style.

That is true, yes. I don't think there's any way to finagle it into being worthwhile in the rules as they are. Fighting with a sword and dagger was something actually done in real life, as opposed to fighting with two swords like Drizz't does - but the dagger in this situation was a defensive weapon, not an offensive one. Which Salvatore didn't know or disregarded when he wrote Entreri.

Man_Over_Game

2020-04-01, 04:13 PM

That is true, yes. I don't think there's any way to finagle it into being worthwhile in the rules as they are. Fighting with a sword and dagger was something actually done in real life, as opposed to fighting with two swords like Drizz't does - but the dagger in this situation was a defensive weapon, not an offensive one. Which Salvatore didn't know or disregarded when he wrote Entreri.

Well, there's also the possibility that dual wielding would be effective in a world where ambidexterity is common, or the humanoids are more capable.

I'm not a big dual-wielding junky like a lot of people are, and I'm only vaguely familiar with Drizz't, but it's kind of odd to hold a fantasy world to the standards of a mundane one.

Unless the idea is "This world is identical to ours, except these specific exceptions", it'd be better to assume that everything is magical or uses its own types of physics until proven otherwise.

In Drizzt's world, dual wielding works. In ours, it doesn't work, because ours is different. We don't really question why rocks float in the Plane of Air, do we?

Morty

2020-04-01, 04:17 PM

Well, there's also the possibility that dual wielding would be effective in a world where ambidexterity is common, or the humanoids are more capable.

I'm not a big dual-wielding junky like a lot of people are, and I'm only vaguely familiar with Drizz't, but it's kind of odd to hold a fantasy world to the standards of a mundane one.

Unless the idea is "This world is identical to ours, except these specific exceptions", it'd be better to assume that everything is magical or uses its own types of physics until proven otherwise.

In Drizzt's world, dual wielding works. In ours, it doesn't work, because ours is different. We don't really question why rocks float in the Plane of Air, do we?

I'm not suggesting that dual-wielding shouldn't work. I'm just making an observation about this particular kind of dual-wielding.

AdAstra

2020-04-02, 04:24 AM

That is true, yes. I don't think there's any way to finagle it into being worthwhile in the rules as they are. Fighting with a sword and dagger was something actually done in real life, as opposed to fighting with two swords like Drizz't does - but the dagger in this situation was a defensive weapon, not an offensive one. Which Salvatore didn't know or disregarded when he wrote Entreri.

If you're a melee rogue, having a dagger (or multiple, nothing in the rules against that) in your off hand gives you the ability to make ranged attacks in a pinch without spending time switching weapons. If you prefer a rapier over shortswords it doesn't hurt your damage at all, and even if you do use TWF it's one damage lost, which is generally a decent trade. Theoretically rapier-wielders could also do this by holding a light crossbow or something in their off hand, then putting their rapier away when they want to make ranged attacks, but in addition to being way less cool, it prevents you from making opportunity attacks while you're using the crossbow.

Nagog

2020-04-05, 11:07 PM

If I understand correctly, the summarized version of what you're saying is:

Cavalier doesn't deal enough area damage or denial, despite having a 10ft reach and several benefits to keeping enemies locked down within that area.
Conquest is too magical to be considered a valid choice, despite only being a 1/3 caster.

What kind of AoE Control are you imagining here? Some kind of bomb-thrower?

Cavalier is limited by number of attacks and keeping people within range, yes. I could see a Bugbear Cavilier, PAM, Sentinel, and Tunnel Fighter being decently effective as a crowd control, but nothing nearly as effective as the fire-and-forget capabilities of a MI Entangle or a ranger/druid with Spike Growth.
Aren't Paladins half casters? The only 1/3 casters I'm aware of is Eldritch Knight and Arcane Trickster. The difference is only a single level worth of spells, but the power scaling between 4th and 5th level spells is pretty huge. And the issue isn't necessarily "Magic", it's the slot system I'd like to move away from. Like how the Wild Magic Barbarian UA from a while back is still a martial class, despite having many magical effects associated with it.

A bomb thrower could be interesting. The Echo Knight is also pretty close, with having multiple copies of yourself to lock down more targets, but that's not really it's focus per say. I had an idea a while back for a fighter subclass that could use a bonus action to set up a 30 foot radius sphere around them, then with their attack action and subsequent turns they could teleport around that sphere and melee attack enemies from all over, and teleport to the next one between attacks. Later abilities could include halving movement speed of enemies hit, dealing all attacks against a single target and dividing the damage among all the hostiles in that area, stuff like that.

ZenBear

2020-04-06, 01:04 PM

One that doesn't work in 5E is the 4E Swordmage. Lightly armored tank, uses magical wards to protect his allies.

Closest you get is Abjuration Wizard. Risky with the low HP, but you can make it easier in some ways. Ask your DM to let you use the Spell Points variant and you can spam Shield or Absorb Elements through every combat to mitigate damage and replenish your ward. I also like to build this as a Mountain Dwarf to get 14s in STR/DEX/CON/INT through point buy, medium armor and battleaxe/warhammer proficiency.

RossN

2020-04-06, 02:33 PM

Dr. Cliché

2020-04-06, 02:37 PM

Sorinth

2020-04-06, 02:46 PM

I'd like to be able to play a fighter who can be an effective swordsman without having to carry a shield and/or clanking around in full armour.

It's an aesthetic thing really. When I think of a skilled swordsman - at least one I'd like to play - I think of people like Zorro or Westley or basically every Hollywood pirate or samurai. I understand that the Swashbuckler does a lot of this and it is a fun subclass but I wish it was possible with the basic Fighter who is meant to invoke almost everyone who can hit well.

Isn't Zorro pretty much the inspiration they used for Swashbuckler?

Certainly a multiclass Fighter/Rogue should be able to create the character, but you could also go Barbarian since and fluff rage as actually just an intense focus similar to how athletes at times are just "in the zone".

Kensei Monk is also supposed to be that skilled swordsman.

But what is actually your problem with a straight Dex Fighter using a Rapier? It's not going to be the most optimized damage dealer, but you should be able to hold your own in games where min/maxing isn't the most important thing.

RossN

2020-04-06, 02:52 PM

I'm in the same boat, actually, though I'd extend it to other classes as well.

I wish there were more classes with stuff like the Monk or Barbarian natural armour. Or some other reward for not just using the heaviest armour available.

Yep! :D

Isn't Zorro pretty much the inspiration they used for Swashbuckler?

Certainly a multiclass Fighter/Rogue should be able to create the character, but you could also go Barbarian since and fluff rage as actually just an intense focus similar to how athletes at times are just "in the zone".

Kensei Monk is also supposed to be that skilled swordsman.

But what is actually your problem with a straight Dex Fighter using a Rapier? It's not going to be the most optimized damage dealer, but you should be able to hold your own in games where min/maxing isn't the most important thing.

Barbarian and Kensei also have some pretty strong supernatural things going on though.

I'd be very happy to play straight Dex Fighter with a Rapier but by getting rid of a shield I'd be sacrificing significant protection for no in-game benefit.

Waazraath

2020-04-06, 03:07 PM

I'd be very happy to play straight Dex Fighter with a Rapier but by getting rid of a shield I'd be sacrificing significant protection for no in-game benefit.

Why not go for two weapon fighting and pick the defensive duelist feat?

Sorinth

2020-04-06, 03:18 PM

Yep! :D

Barbarian and Kensei also have some pretty strong supernatural things going on though.

I'd be very happy to play straight Dex Fighter with a Rapier but by getting rid of a shield I'd be sacrificing significant protection for no in-game benefit.

Most of the Monks supernatural stuff is fluff though.

Having a pool of resource points that you can use for Monk abilities is no different from the Batllemaster having a pool of resources he can spend on Maneuvers. So you can safely ignore/rename/refluff the whole Ki aspect.

At the later levels they do get a bit mystical, but most of it is also pretty minor and likely won't come up much if at all. For example Timeless Body is not likely to ever come up for a PC, as you aren't likely to get old and food and water is mostly hand-waived away anyways. Purity of Body is more likely to come up because of poison damage, but I don't see it taking away from any RP/game aspects, you simply took less damage, you note the number and move on. And finally Empty Body only comes online at 18th level so I'm not sure it matters much.

ZenBear

2020-04-06, 06:26 PM

I'd be very happy to play straight Dex Fighter with a Rapier but by getting rid of a shield I'd be sacrificing significant protection for no in-game benefit.

Forgoing a shield or two-handed weapon provides a couple unique benefits. If you pump STR and/or get Expertise (Athletics) through feat or multiclass you can grapple foes with your free hand. You could also take some spellcasting levels (EK or multiclass) and not need Warcaster.

WadeWay33

2020-04-06, 06:53 PM

A canceller-type build. It doesn’t really do damage, instead focusing on walls + other battlefield control to keep the martial away, and counterspelling. I think an Abjuration wizard with the right spells might work, but I’ve yet to see it in action.

etrpgb

2020-04-06, 10:56 PM

I'm still disappointed there isn't some kind of knife thrower. It's cool in concept but there's no way to do it without a fair amount of house-ruling. Even then you'll be less effective than pretty much ANYBODY using a short bow.

Isn't this basically a Monk? Martial Arts + Dagger/Handaxe? With the bonus action you can also throw a Dagger/Handaxe as the Two-Weapon Fighting general rule. You'll probably need the Dual Wielder feat, though.

Misterwhisper

2020-04-06, 11:03 PM

Isn't this basically a Monk? Martial Arts + Dagger/Handaxe? With the bonus action you can also throw a Dagger/Handaxe as the Two-Weapon Fighting general rule. You'll probably need the Dual Wielder feat, though.

The issue is throwing more than one, unless you have a friendly Artificer.

etrpgb

2020-04-06, 11:22 PM

The issue is throwing more than one, unless you have a friendly Artificer.

I guess that's a problem.

Let's see if I got it right. One can draw a weapon freely, and draw another as Object Iteration.
So, our Monk (probably Kensai) explores the dungeons with two daggers in his hands. The initiative got rolled, the Monk uses the "Attack action", he can: throw the first dagger, throw the second dagger (as Bonus Action), draw two daggers (one for free, another as Object Iteration), and throw one thanks to Extra Attack. Now he has only one dagger in his hand, so the next turn he will be handicapped...

The problem is indeed there. I'd probably house-rule that Monks can draw weapons freely...

Misterwhisper

2020-04-06, 11:58 PM

I guess that's a problem.

Let's see if I got it right. One can draw a weapon freely, and draw another as Object Iteration.
So, our Monk (probably Kensai) explores the dungeons with two daggers in his hands. The initiative got rolled, the Monk uses the "Attack action", he can: throw the first dagger, throw the second dagger (as Bonus Action), draw two daggers (one for free, another as Object Iteration), and throw one thanks to Extra Attack. Now he has only one dagger in his hand, so the next turn he will be handicapped...

The problem is indeed there. I'd probably house-rule that Monks can draw weapons freely...

Actually drawing one is once. You use your object interaction to draw one, and that is it.
If you have dual wielder for some reason you can draw 2, although that feat is pretty crappy and you can use 2 of them anyway.

You could enter combat with 2.
Throw one, throw the second, draw one.
Start next round with one and throw and draw.

Also you don't have to throw it with a bonus action, you could just throw both with your two normal attacks, then normal unarmed attacks for bonus.

Also no reason to be kensei, like ever, especially for someone who wants to use a melee weapon that is a monk weapon already.

Dr. Cliché

2020-04-07, 03:36 AM

A canceller-type build. It doesn’t really do damage, instead focusing on walls...

We could call it 'The Donald'. :smallbiggrin:

WadeWay33

2020-04-07, 07:14 AM

We could call it 'The Donald'. :smallbiggrin:

Alright, wrap it up. Best joke on the thread, we can go home.

Tes

2020-04-07, 02:13 PM

Hm most things I'd like to see have been mentioned to some capacity, but I'll expand on some ideas.
Half assed set of features as placeholders to how I wish it was possible to build a class.
This isn't intended as a homebrew, more a rough collection of features I wish the game included.

Martial Commander Archetype:
TLDR: STR+INT, capable of frontlining in Plate. Althoug replacing STR with DEX would work quite naturally. Smart and cunning Sergeant rather than charismatic lead by example Paladin/Purple Dragon Knight.

A leader type, but not through inspiration or but flat out commanding and setting up tactical maneavers while focussing on being an anchor for his allies and delegating battlefield duties. Distracting opponents, setting up cross turn combos, and being able to mess with Initiative or held actions (at high levels).
Best guess why this does not exist is because it is too much of a "main character" kind of thing, and the usual party should be ragtag band of somewhat likeminded and euqal individuals. It's also somewhat of a military commander thing, which suggests a superior<->subordinate relationship that might possibly strain the social side of things.
Could easily just be a Fighter Subclass, being able to transfer Action Surge and his own Reaction to others and expending actions while getting a minor benefit for himself when doing so.

Martial Weaponmaster Archetype:
TLDR: STR+DEX Martial utilizing all his Strength, Agility, Knowledge and Cunning to outclass opponents in combat.

Utilizes DEX and STR (including Proficiencies), adds his DEX and STR to attacks but can't exceed twice his INT+WIS MOD (including if one is negative). Would basically have no single high stat and can only really dump Charisma. As an accident this would go pretty well with plain old human Human.
No shield Proficiency, features would often require an empty hand to grapple, throw, punch, grab another weapon or sheath for maneauvers like "Iaijutsu", halfswording, improvising another damage type by using the hilt of a sword or pointy end of a warhammer. Access to several (unique?) Fighting Styles and able to weave in between things with Bonus Actions.
Class ability for Advantage or Expertise on a limited set of Skills (to offset the lack of a high stat, without stepping on Rogue's Toes, they'll still be best with access to Expertise and Advantage).
Subclasses:
1. A guy being deadly with about any weapon he can get his hands on, usually mixing and matching several each fight, with different abilities tied to weapon class.
2. A true Martial Adept, without the mystic touch of a Monk. Plain old knowing each (dirty) trick in the book to dismantle his opponents with a mix of weapon attacks and unarmed techniques.
3. A guy being really really good with just his favoured 1H weapon, striving for perfection. Forfeiting extra damage for Crits entirely, but with the ability to flat out make things vulnerable to his strikes (doesn't stack with other kinds of vulnerability), including reducing immunities to resistance. Basically manifesting his discipline into an effect bordering on magic. Materializing that anything can hurt by your weapon if you train hard enough.

The class itself would be a +1 to hit and damage ahead of other classes. Potentially opens up all (martial) weapons to be useful, offsetting the lost damage compared to 2H weapons for flexibility in damage types, ranged options and melee. Would still usually have lower base damage dice than other Martials to offset the upsides.
Laggs a bit behind in non combat abilities (but can be number 2 in a lot of things) yet would hardly ever truly suck at something (maybe half Proficiency Bonus rounded up to all non STR/Dex saving throws as lvl7 feature?). Avoiding the big stupid fighter Archetype with weak mental stats altogether.