Character Concepts you wished would work in D&D?

[MrStabby]

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]

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]

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]

Spoiler

Show

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]

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]

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]

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]

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.

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.

EDIT: Inquisitive Rogue might work - they can make a Wisdom (Insight) check to read an opponent and open them up for Sneak Attacks. If nothing else, it can make a nice base for a more scholarly version.

[T.G. Oskar]

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]

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]

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 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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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.

[Man_Over_Game]

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]

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]

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/d...rUA020617s.pdf

[Man_Over_Game]

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/d...rUA020617s.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]

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/s...56564434980865

[Waazraath]

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]

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.