Unlike picking what you feel is a bad subclass (such as, possibly, a 4E Monk), so called TRAP Invocations are not a big deal because you can try one for a level and then train it out if you are not happy with it's utility.
Having optimisers in the playtest for a game is useful. The game should never be built for them. 5e is, rightly, built around an assumed group of non-optimising players.
I myself am an optimiser, but my optimising knowledge of the system is only useful in the sense of game design in the specific context of finding bugs. The game should never change because people who are more into optimization than I would never touch a 4 elements monk. The 4 elements monk is unbalanced without the perspective of the min-maxer, and thus could reasonably be considered a problem. The gameplay of the subclass suffers, even in a non optimised group,because of the way it was designed. The "sub-par" invocations do not cause the gameplay to suffer in a non optimised group, and are thus fine as is. IE, the POV of the min maxer is irrelevant to determining if those game elements are working.
Is it so hard for you to believe that you can do both of these things? That mechanics can exist inside the game for min-maxing players to work out and use as well as other things? Frankly, I find your overall dismissal that "no min-maxer would ever touch a Four Elements Monk" or that 'Sub-par invocations do not cause gameplay to suffer in non-optimized groups" because both of these statements are ignorant of reality. Some min-maxers will play a Four Elements Monk to find out how to get the best out of it and sub-par, nay, TRAP invocations can exist. In the same way that the Beast Master Ranger has options that are just straight up worse for it's companion that lead to it's overall power level feeling poor, bad invocations can cause a player's perception of Warlock to be twisted.
Min-maxing has it's place, a good game has something in it that appeals to those people and it's in there ON PURPOSE and straight up bad options for customization can cause issues even with players who are not expecting to get the most out of their characters.
Every PHB invocation is within the non-optimized playability band, IMO, but if there are one or two where you disagree, that isn't really the point, it's just a quibble about the example.
And I literally already pointed out the usefulness of optimization for the use case you point out with the 4 elements monk. ie, finding bugs. A person who happens to like optimization might play one simply for fun, as well, but they aren't going to do so in a game wherein the group is optimizing, because it is inarguably less powerful than any other monk subclass, to a noticeable degree, and in such game it would be downright rude to play a substandard subclass of a class that relies on its subclasses for a decent chunk of its power.
But playtesting (like I already said), sure. Heck, I've played Fighters and Clerics, who I find unimaginably boring, in one-shots to figure out how their mechanics play out in an actual game. That has nothing to do with what I would generally play, though.
I don't know what is confusing you, but you seem to think that I'm saying that optimization/min-maxing is worthless/useless, or something to that effect. That is explicitly not what I've been saying.
Unlike picking what you feel is a bad subclass (such as, possibly, a 4E Monk), so called TRAP Invocations are not a big deal because you can try one for a level and then train it out if you are not happy with it's utility.
4e Monk is a great example of what I'm talking about.
In literally any game that isn't focused on min-maxed CharOp play, it is a really good class. You genuinely have to be playing one next to CharOp built mutli-attack-exploiting strikers to even see a difference in power level. In fact, only in those sorts of games/games where the line between a win and a TPK is razor thin was the Monk's multi-target multi-attacking anything close to a liability. But, in an optimiser's game, the Monk is third tier, just above a pure class Vampire or OAssassin.
The worst warlock Invocations aren't traps. At worst, they're just not choices that Optimizers will take. There is nothing wrong with the game having those. In a normal game, you can play a warlock without Eldritch Blast, and only take the fun utility Invocations, and it's fine.
And yeah, in the end, like you say, you can just trade it out if it isn't working for you. Like a spell.
Like I said in one of my previous posts there are 39 Invocations that are not 1 per day spells that use a spell slot. Devil's sight and Agonizing Blast are 2 of the best invocations. The latter I would even take with a Hexblade Warlock that is mainly in melee.
Multi quoting seems to be a ***** so I'll try do this this way instead.
"Unlike picking what you feel is a bad subclass (such as, possibly, a 4E Monk), so called TRAP Invocations are not a big deal because you can try one for a level and then train it out if you are not happy with it's utility." This is true even within Beastmaster Ranger and it was still lauded to the point of an article talking about it's trap options etc etc. Frankly, trap options very existence is a problem, that's why they're called traps.
"I don't know what is confusing you, but you seem to think that I'm saying that optimization/min-maxing is worthless/useless, or something to that effect. That is explicitly not what I've been saying. " Your insistence that 5e is not and that any game should not be built with optimizing players in mind. As a statement I am dismissing it as untrue and rather silly.
I'm not against non optimal invocations existing, as I hope has come across. My point was that trap invocations do exist and they should not. That's all.
My point is that you will be stuck with a so called TRAP subclass, barring generosity of your GM. Invocations are NEVER traps since they can be retrained. And frankly I don't think any of them are really traps. Even the "Thief of Five Fates" which I thought was somewhat of a trap since it's only a 1st lvl spell, is not really because I realized it's actually leveling up with your spell slots. At 9th lvl you can Bane 7(!) targets since it's using a 5th lvl spell slot.
My point is that you will be stuck with a so called TRAP subclass, barring generosity of your GM. Invocations are NEVER traps since they can be retrained. And frankly I don't think any of them are really traps. Even the "Thief of Five Fates" which I thought was somewhat of a trap since it's only a 1st lvl spell, is not really because I realized it's actually leveling up with your spell slots. At 9th lvl you can Bane 7(!) targets since it's using a 5th lvl spell slot.
Oh you mean as opposed to what happens when you pick Beastmaster Ranger? Sure, if they realise.
I think Warlocks are a REALLY good glass design UNTIL level 11. At when you start getting Mystic Arcanum instead of higher level spells slots because Mystic Arcanum lack the flexibility of spells and not having higher level spell slots cripples the class for casting lower level spells at higher level. They don't really do anything to make up for that lose. That said... If you don't play past level 10 (which according to many is pretty common) their is nothing wrong with the class and it plays very well.
So before judging this class my first question to you is what is the highest level you have ever played a character too and is that normal or do you normally play a to a lower level and reboot?
If your answer is I have played to level 12 but normally we start a new campaign around level 8 or 9... then Warlock is great class!!!
If your answer is I have played to level 20 regularly but normally we start a new campaign around level 14 or 15... Then Warlock is a lower end class better taken as 2 level cross-class dip or crossing with a full caster / paladin after 9 levels of warlock but before 13 levels of warlock. Generally I would drop off with 9 levels of warlock but it might very if you REALLY need that level 10 subclass feature or the Ability Stat Increase at 12.
I am not saying the Mystic Arcanum options can't be fun but they are basically locked single spells. The loss if different spell options at that level, being able to cast the spell more than once per long rest, the lose of the ability to scale lower level spells, and the ability to select lower level spells you missed at higher levels (charm for example is still useful at level 12 if you have not picked it yet) are all huge hits to the class. If you do intend to keep the class after level 10, I would recommend that you try and convince your GM to HOUSE RULE that you get normal spell slots form the full caster spell chart from for spell slots 6 - 9, not gaining spell slots 5 and below but just keeping your PACT MAGIC level 5 spell slots as per usual for the class. This lets you cast spells at higher levels and you can cast your "Mystic Arcanum" multiple times based on spell slot availability like every other class. Also, at level 12 / 14 /16 /18 you can select a second "Mystic Arcanum" for the slots you have available. This resolves most of the issues with the class.... but its a house rule and your going to have to convince your GM.
That's my opinion anyway. Whatever you path I hope it turns out enjoyable for you and your group.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
The lack of inflection in text means that a reader of any post adds their own inflection as they "verbalize" it in their head. I write long and repetitive in an effort to be clear and avoid my intent from being skewed or inverted. I am also bad at examples. It is common for people to skim my posts pull out the idea they think I mean or want to argue against or focus on my bad example instead of the point I am actually trying to make. I apologies for the confusion my failure to be clear and concise creates.
Frankly, if your solution is "get a house rule" it seems irrelevant to the argument outside of stating you believe there is something wrong. As to that solution it seems to draw you away from the downsides of being a Lock and I am inherently wary of anything that tries to beat out downsides
I think Warlocks are a REALLY good glass design UNTIL level 11. At when you start getting Mystic Arcanum instead of higher level spells slots because Mystic Arcanum lack the flexibility of spells and not having higher level spell slots cripples the class for casting lower level spells at higher level. They don't really do anything to make up for that lose. That said... If you don't play past level 10 (which according to many is pretty common) their is nothing wrong with the class and it plays very well.
At level 11 you start getting more spell slots per short rest which makes up for the fact that you get Mystic Arcanum's instead of higher level spell slots. I think that the designers balanced the warlock very well overall. The only house rule that I'd like is to be able to pick a lower level spell as a Mystic Arcanum and cast it at a higher level, and that's just because I don't care for the 7th level Warlock spells very much. They're powerful, but they're not the type of spell that I like which is a personal preference and doesn't affect the power of the warlock.
Maybe I misinterpreted the phrase "within the non-optimized playability band." Did you mean they are all playable even if your party is not optimized?
The non-optimized playability band is the spectrum of utility that isn't going to bring a character or group down in a normal, non-optimised game.
Feats are the easier example, so I'll use Sharpshooter and Linguist as my examples, and then riff on the general topic for a bit. In an optimized game, an sniper ranger character (especially a non-human) who takes Linguist is...not building an optimized character, and will probably have trouble keeping up with the rest of the group, and feeling like they are contributing as much as everyone else.
Depending on the make-up of the group, such a ranger who takes Dual Wielder to boost their melee for when it's needed while staying dex focused isn't optimizing as much as they could be, but they aren't really going to be a hindrance as long as the rest of their build is well made, but Linguist is just a bad feat for an optimized game (barring a DM that is really into language barriers and riddles as part of exploration, but even then if there is an int-focused character on the team, leave that to them in such a game, because optimization generally wants specialization). You could even call it a "trap", in that specific context. In many CharOp analyses, taking nearly any feat is a "trap", or at least a second tier option, compared to boosting your primary and secondary stats.
But in a normal, nonCharOp game, branching out with some situational benefits outside your normal wheelhouse isn't a big deal, and having 1 feat that doesn't add to your fight efficacy isn't going to hurt anything.
I don't think there are any invocations that would be detrimental to the survival or ability to contribute of a warlock character. BladeLock's are a special case because they have multiple Invocation taxes they need in order to have baseline efficacy as a melee character, but other warlocks won't be struggling to keep up because they chose to be able to cast Compulsion or Polymorph once a day with a warlock slot. Now, the swimming one could be considered a trap by some, but it only is if your DM doesn't let you know what kind of campaign they're running. Beast Speech or Eyes of The Rune Keeper are likewise campaign dependent, but anyone who considers campaign dependent options to be trap options has a very different mindset toward the game than I think the vast majority of players do.
Multi quoting seems to be a ***** so I'll try do this this way instead.
"Unlike picking what you feel is a bad subclass (such as, possibly, a 4E Monk), so called TRAP Invocations are not a big deal because you can try one for a level and then train it out if you are not happy with it's utility." This is true even within Beastmaster Ranger and it was still lauded to the point of an article talking about it's trap options etc etc. Frankly, trap options very existence is a problem, that's why they're called traps.
"I don't know what is confusing you, but you seem to think that I'm saying that optimization/min-maxing is worthless/useless, or something to that effect. That is explicitly not what I've been saying. " Your insistence that 5e is not and that any game should not be built with optimizing players in mind. As a statement I am dismissing it as untrue and rather silly.
I'm not against non optimal invocations existing, as I hope has come across. My point was that trap invocations do exist and they should not. That's all.
And I and other who disagree with you are saying that trap invocations don't exist. That's all. Any option you might describe as a trap is simply not a top teir choice, no more or less. It doesn't cause the character to perform below expectations, in a non optimized game.
My point, again, about optimization as part of the game, is that optimization is not the point of the game, and is not important to determining how well the game is made, unless the game is being designed for that niche. 5e isn't, and no game that is meant to have mass appeal (ie, not be fore a small niche within a small niche within a small niche) should be designed for that niche. Having options that we optimizers will enjoy is great, but it shouldn't ever be a priority, and should never be put above making the game enjoyable to the majority of players, who are not optimizers. Particularly because most optimizers are completely capable of enjoying a game that isn't built for their optimizing tastes.
Optimizers are useful during a playtest, and to find things that the designers missed even after the playtest, and as part of the fanbase their input should be listened to, but the game is not for them, as a group, it's for everyone. The people who play DnD, are optimizers, and don't enjoy a version of dnd that wasn't built with them in mind, are an incredibly small fraction of the fan base. Most players aren't optimizers, and most optimizers enjoy 5e as it is.
My point is that you will be stuck with a so called TRAP subclass, barring generosity of your GM. Invocations are NEVER traps since they can be retrained. And frankly I don't think any of them are really traps. Even the "Thief of Five Fates" which I thought was somewhat of a trap since it's only a 1st lvl spell, is not really because I realized it's actually leveling up with your spell slots. At 9th lvl you can Bane 7(!) targets since it's using a 5th lvl spell slot.
Oh you mean as opposed to what happens when you pick Beastmaster Ranger? Sure, if they realise.
If a player doesn't "realize" (ie doesn't perceive it that way from play experience) that their class feature "is a trap option", then it isn't one. It's just an option that won't show up on an optimized character. There's nothing wrong with such options being in the game. Linguist is a good feat. It's a terrible optimization feat, but it's a good feat. If we use CharOp to determine what is a trap, half the game is trap options, because only first tier options are optimized.
Also there is nothing 'non-optimized' about Devil's Sight and Agonizing Blast, just to name the first two that come to mind.
OK, sure. Has someone claimed that either of those isn't an optimal choice?
Only where I misinterpreted you as saying, No invocations in the PHB have optimized playability. Where what you were truly saying is, none are un-playable unless you are playing an optimized game.
Unless you mean the 4E Monk when you say "either of those" cause lots of people claim it is not optimal. 4E Monk optimizes Action Economy, but has a horrible ki cost that is not outweighed.
Also there is nothing 'non-optimized' about Devil's Sight and Agonizing Blast, just to name the first two that come to mind.
OK, sure. Has someone claimed that either of those isn't an optimal choice?
Only where I misinterpreted you as saying, No invocations in the PHB have optimized playability. Where what you were truly saying is, none are un-playable unless you are playing an optimized game.
Unless you mean the 4E Monk when you say "either of those" cause lots of people claim it is not optimal. 4E Monk optimizes Action Economy, but has a horrible ki cost that is not outweighed.
Re: Monks, I thought the comment I responded to was refering to the 4e Monk, not the 4E Monk. That's my bad.
The 4Elements Monk is too expensive for what it does, agreed. I found that lowering the Ki cost of most abilities by 1 Ki, and changing Elemental Attunement to simply be the utility cantrips from the Elemental Evil Player thingy mostly fixes it, but as written, it is a a class that gets cool abilities but pays too much for them.
And we're on the same page on the Invocations, now. I am saying that all Warlock Invocations are within the band of playability in non-optimized games.
I'm further saying that, along with "are they fun", is all that actually matters. If CharOpers can or can't min-max just isn't important, by itself, as long as the game doesn't have egregious trap options, which I don't believe 5e has. Even the "trap" animal companions for the Beast Master Ranger aren't going to interfere with the Ranger multi-attacking with Hunter's Mark and being the best at exploration. In a normal game, most players don't even take any feats! The BM Ranger doesn't work as intended, but I don't think anything in 5e compares to some of the genuine traps of, say, 3.5. It's also not as well balanced as 4e, wherein even the worst classes in the game could contribute to a normal fight in a normal game, alongside the best classes in the game, so long as no one was getting build advice on the CharOp forums.
I think Warlocks are a REALLY good glass design UNTIL level 11. At when you start getting Mystic Arcanum instead of higher level spells slots because Mystic Arcanum lack the flexibility of spells and not having higher level spell slots cripples the class for casting lower level spells at higher level. They don't really do anything to make up for that lose. That said... If you don't play past level 10 (which according to many is pretty common) their is nothing wrong with the class and it plays very well.
At level 11 you start getting more spell slots per short rest which makes up for the fact that you get Mystic Arcanum's instead of higher level spell slots. I think that the designers balanced the warlock very well overall. The only house rule that I'd like is to be able to pick a lower level spell as a Mystic Arcanum and cast it at a higher level, and that's just because I don't care for the 7th level Warlock spells very much. They're powerful, but they're not the type of spell that I like which is a personal preference and doesn't affect the power of the warlock.
I agree that the 3rd spell slot is a big deal, but I disagree that is off sets having higher level spell slots to cast low level spells at higher level, multiple spell options on your "high level spells", the ability to pick lower level spells you would prefer, and lets not for get that at level 11, full caster classes have 16 spell slots, Half casters 10 spell slots, and Third casters 7 spell slots. After all what happens when you only have one fight in a day? The ability to recharge your spell slots on a short rest means nothing at that point and you have given up a ton of options and flexibility for no return. Unless you have 3 combat encounters daily or a group of all warlocks that take frequent short rests and keep pushing your likely to have groups stop or delay moving forward attempting to prevent moving forward when they are spent. The result of that is groups often pushing other casters to there limit in 1 or 2 battles and when a Warlock would shine they pull back, hide, and wait making the warlock a good guard while they rest but unless patrols and scouts find the group during rest regularly its rarely going to matter. That long after a warlock would have spent his spells in a single combat. Not saying I don't like the warlocks, I am enjoying playing one now but I find the wizard in our group rarely runs out spells during encounters of the day and I run out most battles hoping to recover between. So the lose of all that flexibility does not compare to the other full casters ... even with 3 spells slots...
Now let me clarify, I am also a Tome warlock designed as a caster who struggles to do anything but eldritch blast since I will use one for hex/darkness up front so I really only have 1 or 2 actual casts to play with per combat encounter... If your a Pact of the Blade warlock and your doing mostly melee combat then having 1 or 2 spells to play with is more comparable for one third caster using other attacks and knocking people prone etc.
That's my opinion and experience anyway.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
The lack of inflection in text means that a reader of any post adds their own inflection as they "verbalize" it in their head. I write long and repetitive in an effort to be clear and avoid my intent from being skewed or inverted. I am also bad at examples. It is common for people to skim my posts pull out the idea they think I mean or want to argue against or focus on my bad example instead of the point I am actually trying to make. I apologies for the confusion my failure to be clear and concise creates.
Why are you struggling? Even a Tome warlock should mostly be just doing eldritch blast. Tome gives you a lot of flexibility outside the combat. If you are trying to compete with your spellcasting against any other full caster, you are doing it wrong.
Funny... Its when i stop talking that people start agreeing with me...
Totally agree about trap invocations and spell slot getting wasted way too fast.
Fact of the matter the biggest downfall of warlock is that it is a one trick poney reguardless of what archetype you choose. In fact those archetypes only cement the one trick thing even more.
Not a bad class... But could get more in its core features.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
DM of two gaming groups. Likes to create stuff. Check out my homebrew --> Monsters --> Magical Items --> Races --> Subclasses If you like --> Upvote, If you wanna comment --> Comment
Play by Post Games --> One Shot Adventure - House of Artwood (DM) (Completed)
Unlike picking what you feel is a bad subclass (such as, possibly, a 4E Monk), so called TRAP Invocations are not a big deal because you can try one for a level and then train it out if you are not happy with it's utility.
We do bones, motherf***ker!
We do bones, motherf***ker!
20 ki Fist of Unbroken Air does 21d10 damage with one action (125). Optimization is fairly subjective. Be careful what you call inarguable
Also there is nothing 'non-optimized' about Devil's Sight and Agonizing Blast, just to name the first two that come to mind.
Extended Signature
Like I said in one of my previous posts there are 39 Invocations that are not 1 per day spells that use a spell slot. Devil's sight and Agonizing Blast are 2 of the best invocations. The latter I would even take with a Hexblade Warlock that is mainly in melee.
Maybe I misinterpreted the phrase "within the non-optimized playability band." Did you mean they are all playable even if your party is not optimized?
Extended Signature
Multi quoting seems to be a ***** so I'll try do this this way instead.
"Unlike picking what you feel is a bad subclass (such as, possibly, a 4E Monk), so called TRAP Invocations are not a big deal because you can try one for a level and then train it out if you are not happy with it's utility."
This is true even within Beastmaster Ranger and it was still lauded to the point of an article talking about it's trap options etc etc. Frankly, trap options very existence is a problem, that's why they're called traps.
"I don't know what is confusing you, but you seem to think that I'm saying that optimization/min-maxing is worthless/useless, or something to that effect. That is explicitly not what I've been saying. "
Your insistence that 5e is not and that any game should not be built with optimizing players in mind. As a statement I am dismissing it as untrue and rather silly.
I'm not against non optimal invocations existing, as I hope has come across. My point was that trap invocations do exist and they should not. That's all.
My point is that you will be stuck with a so called TRAP subclass, barring generosity of your GM. Invocations are NEVER traps since they can be retrained. And frankly I don't think any of them are really traps. Even the "Thief of Five Fates" which I thought was somewhat of a trap since it's only a 1st lvl spell, is not really because I realized it's actually leveling up with your spell slots. At 9th lvl you can Bane 7(!) targets since it's using a 5th lvl spell slot.
Oh you mean as opposed to what happens when you pick Beastmaster Ranger? Sure, if they realise.
I think Warlocks are a REALLY good glass design UNTIL level 11. At when you start getting Mystic Arcanum instead of higher level spells slots because Mystic Arcanum lack the flexibility of spells and not having higher level spell slots cripples the class for casting lower level spells at higher level. They don't really do anything to make up for that lose. That said... If you don't play past level 10 (which according to many is pretty common) their is nothing wrong with the class and it plays very well.
So before judging this class my first question to you is what is the highest level you have ever played a character too and is that normal or do you normally play a to a lower level and reboot?
If your answer is I have played to level 12 but normally we start a new campaign around level 8 or 9... then Warlock is great class!!!
If your answer is I have played to level 20 regularly but normally we start a new campaign around level 14 or 15... Then Warlock is a lower end class better taken as 2 level cross-class dip or crossing with a full caster / paladin after 9 levels of warlock but before 13 levels of warlock. Generally I would drop off with 9 levels of warlock but it might very if you REALLY need that level 10 subclass feature or the Ability Stat Increase at 12.
I am not saying the Mystic Arcanum options can't be fun but they are basically locked single spells. The loss if different spell options at that level, being able to cast the spell more than once per long rest, the lose of the ability to scale lower level spells, and the ability to select lower level spells you missed at higher levels (charm for example is still useful at level 12 if you have not picked it yet) are all huge hits to the class. If you do intend to keep the class after level 10, I would recommend that you try and convince your GM to HOUSE RULE that you get normal spell slots form the full caster spell chart from for spell slots 6 - 9, not gaining spell slots 5 and below but just keeping your PACT MAGIC level 5 spell slots as per usual for the class. This lets you cast spells at higher levels and you can cast your "Mystic Arcanum" multiple times based on spell slot availability like every other class. Also, at level 12 / 14 /16 /18 you can select a second "Mystic Arcanum" for the slots you have available. This resolves most of the issues with the class.... but its a house rule and your going to have to convince your GM.
That's my opinion anyway. Whatever you path I hope it turns out enjoyable for you and your group.
The lack of inflection in text means that a reader of any post adds their own inflection as they "verbalize" it in their head. I write long and repetitive in an effort to be clear and avoid my intent from being skewed or inverted. I am also bad at examples. It is common for people to skim my posts pull out the idea they think I mean or want to argue against or focus on my bad example instead of the point I am actually trying to make. I apologies for the confusion my failure to be clear and concise creates.
Frankly, if your solution is "get a house rule" it seems irrelevant to the argument outside of stating you believe there is something wrong. As to that solution it seems to draw you away from the downsides of being a Lock and I am inherently wary of anything that tries to beat out downsides
Professional computer geek
We do bones, motherf***ker!
Extended Signature
NOOOOOOOOO. It is cool with a powerful cantrip that requires no material components
Elliott Neve
We do bones, motherf***ker!
The lack of inflection in text means that a reader of any post adds their own inflection as they "verbalize" it in their head. I write long and repetitive in an effort to be clear and avoid my intent from being skewed or inverted. I am also bad at examples. It is common for people to skim my posts pull out the idea they think I mean or want to argue against or focus on my bad example instead of the point I am actually trying to make. I apologies for the confusion my failure to be clear and concise creates.
Why are you struggling? Even a Tome warlock should mostly be just doing eldritch blast. Tome gives you a lot of flexibility outside the combat. If you are trying to compete with your spellcasting against any other full caster, you are doing it wrong.
Funny... Its when i stop talking that people start agreeing with me...
Totally agree about trap invocations and spell slot getting wasted way too fast.
Fact of the matter the biggest downfall of warlock is that it is a one trick poney reguardless of what archetype you choose. In fact those archetypes only cement the one trick thing even more.
Not a bad class... But could get more in its core features.
DM of two gaming groups.
Likes to create stuff.
Check out my homebrew --> Monsters --> Magical Items --> Races --> Subclasses
If you like --> Upvote, If you wanna comment --> Comment
Play by Post Games
--> One Shot Adventure - House of Artwood (DM) (Completed)
So how is being a one trick pony different from a champion fighter or a ranger?