New OOTS products from CafePress
New OOTS t-shirts, ornaments, mugs, bags, and more
Page 4 of 6 FirstFirst 123456 LastLast
Results 91 to 120 of 154
  1. - Top - End - #91
    Ogre in the Playground
     
    Griffon

    Join Date
    Jul 2015
    Location
    The Netherlands
    Gender
    Male

    Default Re: Character Concepts you wished would work in D&D?

    Quote Originally Posted by T.G. Oskar View Post
    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.

  2. - Top - End - #92
    Barbarian in the Playground
     
    ClericGuy

    Join Date
    Jul 2015
    Location
    New Zealand
    Gender
    Male

    Default Re: Character Concepts you wished would work in D&D?

    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).

  3. - Top - End - #93
    Pixie in the Playground
     
    GnomeWizardGuy

    Join Date
    Mar 2020
    Gender
    Male

    Default Re: Character Concepts you wished would work in D&D?

    Quote Originally Posted by Mimersbrønd View Post
    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?"
    Last edited by DrFunkenstein; 2020-03-29 at 06:35 PM.

  4. - Top - End - #94
    Troll in the Playground
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Gender
    Male

    Default Re: Character Concepts you wished would work in D&D?

    Quote Originally Posted by Waazraath View Post
    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.
    Retooler of D&D 3.5 (and 5e/Next) content. See here for more.
    Now with a comprehensive guide for 3.5 Paladin players porting to Pathfinder. Also available for 5th Edition
    On Lawful Good:
    Quote Originally Posted by firebrandtoluc View Post
    My friend is currently playing a paladin. It's way outside his normal zone. I told him to try to channel Santa Claus, Mr. Rogers, and Kermit the Frog. Until someone refuses to try to get off the naughty list. Then become Optimus Prime.
    T.G. Oskar profile by Specter.

  5. - Top - End - #95
    Halfling in the Playground
     
    BardGuy

    Join Date
    Oct 2019
    Gender
    Male

    Default Re: Character Concepts you wished would work in D&D?

    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.
    Current Character(s):
    Vincent Longshadow - College of Whispers Half Elf Bard/Blackguard
    Umbero Falone - Swashbuckler Half-Elf Rogue

    Retired Characters:
    The Third - Awakened Human Mystic
    Wade Way - College of Lore Tiefling Bard
    Dag Cannith - Armorer High Elf Artificer

  6. - Top - End - #96
    Orc in the Playground
     
    Lizardfolk

    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location

    Default Re: Character Concepts you wished would work in D&D?

    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.
    Last edited by Spriteless; 2020-03-29 at 08:58 PM.
    yo

  7. - Top - End - #97
    Bugbear in the Playground
     
    Lizardfolk

    Join Date
    May 2019
    Location
    Hearth

    Default Re: Character Concepts you wished would work in D&D?

    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)
    Last edited by Nagog; 2020-03-29 at 09:49 PM.
    "I may be a Hobgoblin, but the real mythical creature I'm playing is an Ethical Billionaire"

  8. - Top - End - #98
    Firbolg in the Playground
     
    Man_Over_Game's Avatar

    Join Date
    Aug 2018
    Location
    Between SEA and PDX.
    Gender
    Male

    Default Re: Character Concepts you wished would work in D&D?

    Quote Originally Posted by Nagog View Post
    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.

    Quote Originally Posted by T.G. Oskar View Post
    ...
    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).
    Last edited by Man_Over_Game; 2020-03-29 at 10:27 PM.
    Quote Originally Posted by KOLE View Post
    MOG, design a darn RPG system. Seriously, the amount of ideas I’ve gleaned from your posts has been valuable. You’re a gem of the community here.

    5th Edition Homebrewery
    Prestige Options, changing primary attributes to open a world of new multiclassing.
    Adrenaline Surge, fitting Short Rests into combat to fix bosses/Short Rest Classes.
    Pain, using Exhaustion to make tactical martial combatants.
    Fate Sorcery, lucky winner of the 5e D&D Subclass Contest VII!

  9. - Top - End - #99
    Halfling in the Playground
     
    Flumph

    Join Date
    Dec 2019

    Default Re: Character Concepts you wished would work in D&D?

    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!
    Last edited by Forechosen; 2020-03-29 at 10:26 PM.

  10. - Top - End - #100
    Firbolg in the Playground
     
    Man_Over_Game's Avatar

    Join Date
    Aug 2018
    Location
    Between SEA and PDX.
    Gender
    Male

    Default Re: Character Concepts you wished would work in D&D?

    Quote Originally Posted by Forechosen View Post
    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!
    Considering Rogues are perfectly successful with simple weapons and armor, and don't really do much more than "Attack the guy who is hurting my friend" or "succeed at this random skill that nobody knows but happens to be useful at this critical moment", they could fit the bill quite well.
    Quote Originally Posted by KOLE View Post
    MOG, design a darn RPG system. Seriously, the amount of ideas I’ve gleaned from your posts has been valuable. You’re a gem of the community here.

    5th Edition Homebrewery
    Prestige Options, changing primary attributes to open a world of new multiclassing.
    Adrenaline Surge, fitting Short Rests into combat to fix bosses/Short Rest Classes.
    Pain, using Exhaustion to make tactical martial combatants.
    Fate Sorcery, lucky winner of the 5e D&D Subclass Contest VII!

  11. - Top - End - #101
    Troll in the Playground
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Gender
    Male

    Default Re: Character Concepts you wished would work in D&D?

    Quote Originally Posted by Man_Over_Game View Post
    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.)
    Retooler of D&D 3.5 (and 5e/Next) content. See here for more.
    Now with a comprehensive guide for 3.5 Paladin players porting to Pathfinder. Also available for 5th Edition
    On Lawful Good:
    Quote Originally Posted by firebrandtoluc View Post
    My friend is currently playing a paladin. It's way outside his normal zone. I told him to try to channel Santa Claus, Mr. Rogers, and Kermit the Frog. Until someone refuses to try to get off the naughty list. Then become Optimus Prime.
    T.G. Oskar profile by Specter.

  12. - Top - End - #102
    Firbolg in the Playground
     
    Man_Over_Game's Avatar

    Join Date
    Aug 2018
    Location
    Between SEA and PDX.
    Gender
    Male

    Default Re: Character Concepts you wished would work in D&D?

    Quote Originally Posted by T.G. Oskar View Post
    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.
    Quote Originally Posted by KOLE View Post
    MOG, design a darn RPG system. Seriously, the amount of ideas I’ve gleaned from your posts has been valuable. You’re a gem of the community here.

    5th Edition Homebrewery
    Prestige Options, changing primary attributes to open a world of new multiclassing.
    Adrenaline Surge, fitting Short Rests into combat to fix bosses/Short Rest Classes.
    Pain, using Exhaustion to make tactical martial combatants.
    Fate Sorcery, lucky winner of the 5e D&D Subclass Contest VII!

  13. - Top - End - #103
    Ogre in the Playground
    Join Date
    May 2013

    Default Re: Character Concepts you wished would work in D&D?

    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).
    Last edited by Morphic tide; 2020-03-30 at 03:32 AM.

  14. - Top - End - #104
    Ogre in the Playground
     
    Griffon

    Join Date
    Jul 2015
    Location
    The Netherlands
    Gender
    Male

    Default Re: Character Concepts you wished would work in D&D?

    Quote Originally Posted by T.G. Oskar View Post
    *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.

  15. - Top - End - #105
    Banned
     
    MindFlayer

    Join Date
    Sep 2013
    Gender
    Male

    Default Re: Character Concepts you wished would work in D&D?

    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.
    Last edited by Dr. Cliché; 2020-03-30 at 09:37 AM.

  16. - Top - End - #106
    Ogre in the Playground
     
    Griffon

    Join Date
    Jul 2015
    Location
    The Netherlands
    Gender
    Male

    Default Re: Character Concepts you wished would work in D&D?

    Quote Originally Posted by Dr. Cliché View Post
    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.
    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.

  17. - Top - End - #107
    Bugbear in the Playground
     
    Lizardfolk

    Join Date
    May 2019
    Location
    Hearth

    Default Re: Character Concepts you wished would work in D&D?

    Quote Originally Posted by Man_Over_Game View Post
    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.
    Last edited by Nagog; 2020-03-30 at 10:41 AM.
    "I may be a Hobgoblin, but the real mythical creature I'm playing is an Ethical Billionaire"

  18. - Top - End - #108
    Banned
     
    MindFlayer

    Join Date
    Sep 2013
    Gender
    Male

    Default Re: Character Concepts you wished would work in D&D?

    Quote Originally Posted by Waazraath View Post
    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.


    Quote Originally Posted by Waazraath View Post
    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.

  19. - Top - End - #109

    Default Re: Character Concepts you wished would work in D&D?

    Quote Originally Posted by DracoKnight View Post
    Forgive me, but no. The Stone Sorcerer was the attempt at a 5e Sword Mage: https://twitter.com/knuckleofvecna/s...56564434980865
    Ohhhhhhh, that’s why it seemed so familiar.

  20. - Top - End - #110
    Ogre in the Playground
     
    BlackDragon

    Join Date
    Feb 2015
    Location
    In a dungeon somewhere
    Gender
    Male

    Default Re: Character Concepts you wished would work in D&D?

    Quote Originally Posted by GandalfTheWhite View Post
    Ohhhhhhh, that’s why it seemed so familiar.
    Yes, that would be why.

  21. - Top - End - #111
    Firbolg in the Playground
     
    Man_Over_Game's Avatar

    Join Date
    Aug 2018
    Location
    Between SEA and PDX.
    Gender
    Male

    Default Re: Character Concepts you wished would work in D&D?

    Quote Originally Posted by Nagog View Post
    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?
    Quote Originally Posted by KOLE View Post
    MOG, design a darn RPG system. Seriously, the amount of ideas I’ve gleaned from your posts has been valuable. You’re a gem of the community here.

    5th Edition Homebrewery
    Prestige Options, changing primary attributes to open a world of new multiclassing.
    Adrenaline Surge, fitting Short Rests into combat to fix bosses/Short Rest Classes.
    Pain, using Exhaustion to make tactical martial combatants.
    Fate Sorcery, lucky winner of the 5e D&D Subclass Contest VII!

  22. - Top - End - #112
    Titan in the Playground
     
    Morty's Avatar

    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    Poland
    Gender
    Male

    Default Re: Character Concepts you wished would work in D&D?

    Quote Originally Posted by Man_Over_Game View Post
    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.
    My FFRP characters. Avatar by Ashen Lilies. Sigatars by Ashen Lilies, Gullara and Purple Eagle.
    Interested in the Nexus FFRP setting? See our Discord server.

  23. - Top - End - #113
    Firbolg in the Playground
     
    Man_Over_Game's Avatar

    Join Date
    Aug 2018
    Location
    Between SEA and PDX.
    Gender
    Male

    Default Re: Character Concepts you wished would work in D&D?

    Quote Originally Posted by Morty View Post
    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.
    Quote Originally Posted by KOLE View Post
    MOG, design a darn RPG system. Seriously, the amount of ideas I’ve gleaned from your posts has been valuable. You’re a gem of the community here.

    5th Edition Homebrewery
    Prestige Options, changing primary attributes to open a world of new multiclassing.
    Adrenaline Surge, fitting Short Rests into combat to fix bosses/Short Rest Classes.
    Pain, using Exhaustion to make tactical martial combatants.
    Fate Sorcery, lucky winner of the 5e D&D Subclass Contest VII!

  24. - Top - End - #114
    Ogre in the Playground
     
    ElfPirate

    Join Date
    Sep 2018
    Location
    Seattle, WA

    Default Re: Character Concepts you wished would work in D&D?

    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.
    Last edited by PoeticallyPsyco; 2020-03-30 at 07:18 PM.
    Quote Originally Posted by Darths & Droids
    When you combine the two most devious, sneaky, manipulative, underhanded, cunning, and diabolical forces in the known universe, the consequences can be world-shattering. Those forces are, of course, players and GMs.
    Optimization Trophies

    Looking for a finished webcomic to read, or want to recommend one to others? Check out my Completed Webcomics You'd Recommend II thread!

    Or perhaps you want something Halloweeny for the season? Halloween Webcomics II

  25. - Top - End - #115
    Titan in the Playground
     
    Morty's Avatar

    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    Poland
    Gender
    Male

    Default Re: Character Concepts you wished would work in D&D?

    Quote Originally Posted by Man_Over_Game View Post
    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.
    Last edited by Morty; 2020-03-31 at 11:41 AM.
    My FFRP characters. Avatar by Ashen Lilies. Sigatars by Ashen Lilies, Gullara and Purple Eagle.
    Interested in the Nexus FFRP setting? See our Discord server.

  26. - Top - End - #116
    Firbolg in the Playground
     
    Man_Over_Game's Avatar

    Join Date
    Aug 2018
    Location
    Between SEA and PDX.
    Gender
    Male

    Default Re: Character Concepts you wished would work in D&D?

    Quote Originally Posted by Morty View Post
    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?
    Last edited by Man_Over_Game; 2020-03-31 at 12:10 PM.
    Quote Originally Posted by KOLE View Post
    MOG, design a darn RPG system. Seriously, the amount of ideas I’ve gleaned from your posts has been valuable. You’re a gem of the community here.

    5th Edition Homebrewery
    Prestige Options, changing primary attributes to open a world of new multiclassing.
    Adrenaline Surge, fitting Short Rests into combat to fix bosses/Short Rest Classes.
    Pain, using Exhaustion to make tactical martial combatants.
    Fate Sorcery, lucky winner of the 5e D&D Subclass Contest VII!

  27. - Top - End - #117
    Orc in the Playground
     
    BardGirl

    Join Date
    Jun 2019

    Default Re: Character Concepts you wished would work in D&D?

    Quote Originally Posted by Man_Over_Game View Post
    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

  28. - Top - End - #118
    Orc in the Playground
     
    D&D_Fan's Avatar

    Join Date
    Nov 2019
    Location
    Laniakea Supercluster
    Gender
    Male

    Default Re: Character Concepts you wished would work in D&D?

    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.

  29. - Top - End - #119
    Firbolg in the Playground
     
    Man_Over_Game's Avatar

    Join Date
    Aug 2018
    Location
    Between SEA and PDX.
    Gender
    Male

    Default Re: Character Concepts you wished would work in D&D?

    Quote Originally Posted by Zetakya View Post
    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.


    Quote Originally Posted by D&D_Fan View Post
    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.
    Last edited by Man_Over_Game; 2020-03-31 at 03:48 PM.
    Quote Originally Posted by KOLE View Post
    MOG, design a darn RPG system. Seriously, the amount of ideas I’ve gleaned from your posts has been valuable. You’re a gem of the community here.

    5th Edition Homebrewery
    Prestige Options, changing primary attributes to open a world of new multiclassing.
    Adrenaline Surge, fitting Short Rests into combat to fix bosses/Short Rest Classes.
    Pain, using Exhaustion to make tactical martial combatants.
    Fate Sorcery, lucky winner of the 5e D&D Subclass Contest VII!

  30. - Top - End - #120
    Bugbear in the Playground
    Join Date
    Sep 2019
    Location
    North

    Default Re: Character Concepts you wished would work in D&D?

    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/1NWk...xV2J5u_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.
    Last edited by micahaphone; 2020-03-31 at 03:24 PM.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •