Hi, everyone!
Long time, no chat.
At any rate, I have some things that I've written up for 5e that are conversions of older material (3.5 and back) and I need some help looking over them for balance, viability, etc.
Because I intend to put these things into a neat little PDF and put them on the DMGuild for a "pay what you want" fee.
And, if possible, that would include free. (But donations are always appreciated :3 )
So, without further rambling:
Sha'ir Warlock
Spellfire Feat
Tome of Magic (Simple)
Factotum
Each of these is set up so that you may comment directly on the document. Or you can leave your thoughts here and I will collect them.
Either way, help is appreciated :)
Very cool, I especially like the Sha'ir Warlock. Perfect for the Elemental Evil campaign.
Very cool, I especially like the Sha'ir Warlock. Perfect for the Elemental Evil campaign.
I actually hadn't thought of that. But... yeah. That would be slick as snot.
I designed it for my home campaign setting, actually. It, too, features elemental cults, but not necessarily those dedicated to APOCALYPSAGEDDON.
Huh. No comments on the factotum yet. Not sure if I should be worried or flattered lol
The factotum is an interesting class, and I meant to leave a comment, but it just seems like something that might better suit a bard archetype. I don't want to rain on any parades. I'll have to take another look to see if I have anything to say about specific class features.
See, that's what I'd thought to do as well.
At first.
But, try as I might, I couldn't hammer the original class concept into a bard archetype.
I'd either end up losing class features from the original factotum or losing some of their versatility or both.
Open to suggestions though :3
No parades rained on.
Well, I mean, Pacific Northwest so it's always raining, but I digress :P
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Upon closer inspection, the class really does seem to have some merit, and everything seems meticulously groomed for balance. It seems like a good class, except that it really does branch out all over the place. I'd almost recommend it for new players who want a bit of everything, so that they can naturally progress into a roll as their character evolves with the story.
It might consternate a more experienced player that wants more out of a focused role than this character may provide, but if enough of a notice is given in the character description, I think that it can be avoided.
Really,t his class seems to be a really good pastiche of abilities that might please those people who want to do everything, and I have enjoyed such classes in the past, so go for it! I have so far seen nothing that needs editing. I might need to give it a closer look for actual balance at the higher levels, but I honestly think that it stands pretty well. My judgement would not do as well as playtesting, and I'd encourage you to try to find someone to do just that.
Part of me putting this up was for folks to try it out in their games. I don't have the time/ability to game right now. So, I write instead :P
Also, not sure if you've seen the 3.5 factotum or not, but all of your points are pretty much exactly how this class worked in that edition.
For more information, look at this thingy.
Hi James,
Spellfire does a bit much for a single feat. Compared to Magic Initiate, Spellfire gives you more spells, of higher level, and even more as you level-up. Spellfire does not refresh after a long rest, but the way to recharge your spellfire is yet another set of beneficial abilities.
Spellfire has its own pool of points, its own mechanics, abilities and some improvement as you gain level. For me, this is class material, specifically a new sorcerer archetype.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Hi James,
Spellfire does a bit much for a single feat. Compared to Magic Initiate, Spellfire gives you more spells, of higher level, and even more as you level-up. Spellfire does not refresh after a long rest, but the way to recharge your spellfire is yet another set of beneficial abilities.
Spellfire has its own pool of points, its own mechanics, abilities and some improvement as you gain level. For me, this is class material, specifically a new sorcerer archetype.
Someone else had said it does quite a bit.
And I agree completely!The trick is that anyone is supposed be able to gain spellfire, not just those who can already do magic.
However, I did just think of a way to make it into a sorcerer thingy...
I THINK I HAVE A SOLUTION!
~Place a majority of the features into a sorcerer archetype.
~Keep the feat, but it only grants a reserve (and only the absorb spell recharge) and the create spellflame feature.
This way, it would allow someone to use spellfire, but it would require a little bit more investment to get the meaty-goodness of the original concept (via levels in sorcerer).
Does this seem workable?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I THINK I HAVE A SOLUTION!
~Place a majority of the features into a sorcerer archetype.
~Keep the feat, but it only grants a reserve (and only the absorb spell recharge) and the create spellflame feature.This way, it would allow someone to use spellfire, but it would require a little bit more investment to get the meaty-goodness of the original concept (via levels in sorcerer).
Does this seem workable?
I understand the intention of making it a feat rather than a class. In theory, everyone can multiclass as a sorcerer (and the sorcerer gets its archetype at level 1, which is nice), but not everyone meets the prerequisites. Besides, the only class that could never get spellfire would be, ironically, the sorcerer since you cannot multiclass into your own class...
Breaking-up your spellfire feat into two or three feats could also work. Even if the final result is strong, ASIs are a rare commodity to trade.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
*snip**snip* Besides, the only class that could never get spellfire would be, ironically, the sorcerer since you cannot multiclass into your own class...
Breaking-up your spellfire feat into two or three feats could also work. Even if the final result is strong, ASIs are a rare commodity to trade.
Okay, I derped.
I meant to give sorcerers all the things.Why didn't I just say that then?
So, basically, you get ALL of the feat as-it-is-now if you take sorcerer levels, but you can take a feat to gain the spellflame and reserve bits.
That's what I had meant to say.
My derp.
Also, I don't want to break this into several feats (which I'd thought of doing already) as there is no precedent for feat chains in 5e. Just my design preference, really. But, I could also just keep tinkering and release it in a future book-thing.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Good to see some "upgraded to the modern rulesset" freeness. ;)
The Factotum seems like a collection of cool abilities surrounding the concept that "I'm really good at stuff". It's kind of generic and uninteresting. It seems like a class designed around abilities, instead of abilities designed around an in-fiction concept. The abilities are balanced, but other than "being good at stuff" I don't know what really unifies them.
The Factotum seems like a collection of cool abilities surrounding the concept that "I'm really good at stuff". It's kind of generic and uninteresting. It seems like a class designed around abilities, instead of abilities designed around an in-fiction concept. The abilities are balanced, but other than "being good at stuff" I don't know what really unifies them.
This is actually how the original 3.5 class worked. It was meant to be the ultimate jack-of-all-trades, master-of-none.
I'll agree that the concept is pretty bland, overall. But the class is supposed to be "an adventurer with a large bag of tricks."I played one back in 3.5 and it was by far my favorite class in that system.
If you were to suggest a fix for the "generalness," what would you like to see?
I'm more than open to ideas :3
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Part of what I'm going for with advice here is how to sell it on DM's Guild. Give me a hook about the class, describe what kind of person takes this class in a way that makes them sound different from things like Bard and Rogue.
In some ways, this is a pulp adventurer, an explorer who's been everywhere and seen everything. They expect the unexpected. A good, evocative description will help this catch people's eye.
One small suggestion on the Spellfire feat/ability: The reaction Absorb Spell is way too good. In itself it could very well be a feat (targeted by a spell, counter as a reaction?); as an incidental means of recharging is just way too much. It also encourages Spellfire users to spend all charges as quick as possible and walk around with 0 charges, thus becoming almost immune to spells.
Make it like 3e: You need to Ready an action to absorb spells as they're cast. It pretty much sucks (you have to be lucky enough that the enemy casts a single-target spell focused on you), but, honestly, the spell-absorption isn't the main draw here.
Compare it to Defensive Duelist and you'll quickly see it never scaling back.
Part of what I'm going for with advice here is how to sell it on DM's Guild. Give me a hook about the class, describe what kind of person takes this class in a way that makes them sound different from things like Bard and Rogue.
In some ways, this is a pulp adventurer, an explorer who's been everywhere and seen everything. They expect the unexpected. A good, evocative description will help this catch people's eye.
Oh.
Yeah. I'm totally going to write the descriptive portions.I just want the crunch parts out there right now.
Have no worries there :)
One small suggestion on the Spellfire feat/ability: The reaction Absorb Spell is way too good. In itself it could very well be a feat (targeted by a spell, counter as a reaction?); as an incidental means of recharging is just way too much. It also encourages Spellfire users to spend all charges as quick as possible and walk around with 0 charges, thus becoming almost immune to spells.
Make it like 3e: You need to Ready an action to absorb spells as they're cast. It pretty much sucks (you have to be lucky enough that the enemy casts a single-target spell focused on you), but, honestly, the spell-absorption isn't the main draw here.
Compare it to Defensive Duelist and you'll quickly see it never scaling back.
Think about it this way: if you use your reaction to absorb a spell, that means no AoO, no Shield/Feather Fall spell, etc. for that round.
That's what my thought was when I was designing it.It could definitely work as readying an action, though.
On that note... I need to see how counterspelling actually works in 5e.
Like, the action of doing counter-magic.
I don't think I'd seen rules on that lol