Artificers by the book are not casting spells in the strictest sense, there is a section in the Artificer spell casting section called "THE MAGIC OF ARTIFICE" that goes into detail on this. Instead of spending time in meditation/study preparing spells like the other prepared casters, they are building little gizmos/brewing potions that have the same effects as spells that they will use later in the day. Mechanically these end up being virtually the same thing, so instead of spending a lot of time developing, balancing and play-testing a whole new system that had an end result of being 90% the same as the existing spell casting mechanic, WotC decided that re-flavored spell casting was how they would represent Artificers. This is similar to a lot of the opinions on why the mental-powers-that-shall-not-be-named-lest-the-topic-go-off-rails should end up being spellcasting with a "pretend you do this with your mind, instead of the weave" disclaimer on it, or something similar if they are ever implemented in 5E.
Wow... those people sound even more hostile than us Beyonders! Honestly, I think less classes would be a mistake, many more and the books will burst... Let's make all the ones we want further subclasses (because they work, even if they aren't as big).
Yes, Enworld is filled with more "passionate" people than here. I think less classes would be a mistake, which they seem to want more there than we do here.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Please check out my homebrew, I would appreciate feedback:
This is similar to a lot of the opinions on why the mental-powers-that-shall-not-be-named-lest-the-topic-go-off-rails should end up being spellcasting with a "pretend you do this with your mind, instead of the weave" disclaimer on it, or something similar if they are ever implemented in 5E.
Did someone say the P word? I could have sworn I heard it...
This is similar to a lot of the opinions on why the mental-powers-that-shall-not-be-named-lest-the-topic-go-off-rails should end up being spellcasting with a "pretend you do this with your mind, instead of the weave" disclaimer on it, or something similar if they are ever implemented in 5E.
Did someone say the P word? I could have sworn I heard it...
noooo. no-one would ever say that in a game that LITERALLY depends on your imagination.
dont be sarcastic.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
“I will take responsibility for what I have done. [...] If must fall, I will rise each time a better man.” ― Brandon Sanderson, Oathbringer.
This is similar to a lot of the opinions on why the mental-powers-that-shall-not-be-named-lest-the-topic-go-off-rails should end up being spellcasting with a "pretend you do this with your mind, instead of the weave" disclaimer on it, or something similar if they are ever implemented in 5E.
Did someone say the P word? I could have sworn I heard it...
noooo. no-one would ever say that in a game that LITERALLY depends on your imagination.
I don't think they meant present, they meant the silent p word that has "blasted" the minds of this thread, so to speak....
pSYKE!
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Jander Sunstar is the thinking person's Drizzt, fight me.
I saw some people in the Enworld thread suggest some kind of Scholar or Expert class. Basically, someone who is really good an lore and analyzing enemies, using that to their advantage in combat. Not a rogue, though. Not a rogue. Wouldn't get sneak attack, wouldn't focus on Dexterity, and so on. I thought the idea was cool, but don't think it's really needed in the game. I do want about 7ish more classes, maybe a couple more.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Please check out my homebrew, I would appreciate feedback:
I saw some people in the Enworld thread suggest some kind of Scholar or Expert class. Basically, someone who is really good an lore and analyzing enemies, using that to their advantage in combat. Not a rogue, though. Not a rogue. Wouldn't get sneak attack, wouldn't focus on Dexterity, and so on. I thought the idea was cool, but don't think it's really needed in the game. I do want about 7ish more classes, maybe a couple more.
I saw some people in the Enworld thread suggest some kind of Scholar or Expert class. Basically, someone who is really good an lore and analyzing enemies, using that to their advantage in combat. Not a rogue, though. Not a rogue. Wouldn't get sneak attack, wouldn't focus on Dexterity, and so on. I thought the idea was cool, but don't think it's really needed in the game. I do want about 7ish more classes, maybe a couple more.
7 new classes?
That's WAY TOO MANY! Where'd you fit them all?
P word
Gish
Shaman
Witch/Occultist
Summoner
Warlord/Tactician
There's probably another that I'm failing the Intel Check on... And that's just from this thread.
(I think the Shaman could be the summoner, and those are just the classes I really want in the game. There are more that could be possibly added.)
As I said previously, I don't see a problem with the Shaman having a subclass that overlaps with a pure Summoner, but that's not the same as what I am envisioning.
(I think the Shaman could be the summoner, and those are just the classes I really want in the game. There are more that could be possibly added.)
As I said previously, I don't see a problem with the Shaman having a subclass that overlaps with a pure Summoner, but that's not the same as what I am envisioning.
And I understand that, too. It's just different from what I personally assume how a Shaman would work. The more I think about shamans, the more I want to make them be users of Pact Magic.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Please check out my homebrew, I would appreciate feedback:
I saw some people in the Enworld thread suggest some kind of Scholar or Expert class. Basically, someone who is really good an lore and analyzing enemies, using that to their advantage in combat. Not a rogue, though. Not a rogue. Wouldn't get sneak attack, wouldn't focus on Dexterity, and so on. I thought the idea was cool, but don't think it's really needed in the game. I do want about 7ish more classes, maybe a couple more.
7 new classes?
That's WAY TOO MANY! Where'd you fit them all?
It would make the number a nice even 20 though so....
That being said, I'm not sure if we need that many, at least not all at once. I still think making Blood Hunter an official class with a few more sub-classes would be a good start since it already exists in a semi-official-ish form. Otherwise, there are four options I would like explored. A Sword-mage/Gish class, a Shaman/Spirit Summoner-like class, a Warlord/Martial utility class, and a Psionic style class.
I saw some people in the Enworld thread suggest some kind of Scholar or Expert class. Basically, someone who is really good an lore and analyzing enemies, using that to their advantage in combat. Not a rogue, though. Not a rogue. Wouldn't get sneak attack, wouldn't focus on Dexterity, and so on. I thought the idea was cool, but don't think it's really needed in the game. I do want about 7ish more classes, maybe a couple more.
That sounds like The Savant, which I think was first introduced as a concept (a sort of derivative cleric or magic user) for AD&D in (original print) Dragon 140 (I found a good scan of the issue and the article, not sure if we're supposed to post links to that stuff though, same as the Witch class I mentioned today that a GM Guilder adapted from a Dragon issue that came out a couple of years later).
(I think the Shaman could be the summoner, and those are just the classes I really want in the game. There are more that could be possibly added.)
As I said previously, I don't see a problem with the Shaman having a subclass that overlaps with a pure Summoner, but that's not the same as what I am envisioning.
And I understand that, too. It's just different from what I personally assume how a Shaman would work. The more I think about shamans, the more I want to make them be users of Pact Magic.
Now I'm just confused.
Twice now when I've suggested a Summoner base class, you have very specifically (and sorta hypocritically, compared to 20 or so pages ago) said it could just be a subclass of the Shaman. I have, twice, agreed with you there could certainly be overlap between them, but that the idea of a summoning character only being a subclass of a Shaman doesn't jive with what I have described. And now you go on to say that that's different than what you envisioned.... which is exactly what I said, both times?
As for how that relates to Pact Magic, I'm not really sure what that has to do with my class concept. It's only related to yours, that we agree could have a little overlap in their creative space.
I saw some people in the Enworld thread suggest some kind of Scholar or Expert class. Basically, someone who is really good an lore and analyzing enemies, using that to their advantage in combat. Not a rogue, though. Not a rogue. Wouldn't get sneak attack, wouldn't focus on Dexterity, and so on. I thought the idea was cool, but don't think it's really needed in the game. I do want about 7ish more classes, maybe a couple more.
That sounds like The Savant, which I think was first introduced as a concept (a sort of derivative cleric or magic user) for AD&D in (original print) Dragon 140 (I found a good scan of the issue and the article, not sure if we're supposed to post links to that stuff though, same as the Witch class I mentioned today that a GM Guilder adapted from a Dragon issue that came out a couple of years later).
I wasn't really aware there was a Witch class in previous editions, even after I made the Occultist.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Please check out my homebrew, I would appreciate feedback:
(I think the Shaman could be the summoner, and those are just the classes I really want in the game. There are more that could be possibly added.)
As I said previously, I don't see a problem with the Shaman having a subclass that overlaps with a pure Summoner, but that's not the same as what I am envisioning.
And I understand that, too. It's just different from what I personally assume how a Shaman would work. The more I think about shamans, the more I want to make them be users of Pact Magic.
Now I'm just confused.
Twice now when I've suggested a Summoner base class, you have very specifically (and sorta hypocritically, compared to 20 or so pages ago) said it could just be a subclass of the Shaman. I have, twice, agreed with you there could certainly be overlap between them, but that the idea of a summoning character only being a subclass of a Shaman doesn't jive with what I have described. And now you go on to say that that's different than what you envisioned.... which is exactly what I said, both times?
As for how that relates to Pact Magic, I'm not really sure what that has to do with my class concept. It's only related to yours, that we agree could have a little overlap in their creative space.
Sorry if there was some miscommunication. I meant that the base Shaman class would be a summoner. I would envision the subclasses as having different spirits to summon (fey, beasts, deceased humanoid, celestial). I don't think I ever stated the Summoner would be a subclass of Shaman, I meant that the Shaman would be the Summoner class.
Also, the Pact Magic thing might not relate to your vision of the Shaman, but I was just thinking out loud.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Please check out my homebrew, I would appreciate feedback:
Witch- right off the bat, witches in D&D are Fey Patron warlocks as witches aren't much in dnd lore.
Rune Caster: Well, that's something that'd make a nice wizard subclass, I think.
P word (guessing Psionics): Mystic is a good class, but also subclasses do work as well.
Shaman / Summoner - Evoker / Conjuration wizard subclass, mixed with magic tattoos. Not truly necessary.
Warlord - Mastermind Rogue or a Crown Paladin or even a Purple Dragon Knight if ever I saw one (Purple Dragon Knight has its merits)
Gish - you could say Ranger, Bladesinger, or even way of four elements monk here, but this is one thing that I think would make a pretty stable full class. However, you could argue that it is also the Bladesinger or the Hexblade or any number of other subclasses (this one has been used so often!)
I instead give you my following new class ideas:
Oh. Just really the Mystic and the Messenger here, shame. Oh, and Erudite.
I saw some people in the Enworld thread suggest some kind of Scholar or Expert class. Basically, someone who is really good an lore and analyzing enemies, using that to their advantage in combat. Not a rogue, though. Not a rogue. Wouldn't get sneak attack, wouldn't focus on Dexterity, and so on. I thought the idea was cool, but don't think it's really needed in the game. I do want about 7ish more classes, maybe a couple more.
That sounds like The Savant, which I think was first introduced as a concept (a sort of derivative cleric or magic user) for AD&D in (original print) Dragon 140 (I found a good scan of the issue and the article, not sure if we're supposed to post links to that stuff though, same as the Witch class I mentioned today that a GM Guilder adapted from a Dragon issue that came out a couple of years later).
I wasn't really aware there was a Witch class in previous editions, even after I made the Occultist.
A character class in Dragon basically worked as Unearthed Arcana now, but without the polling (you likely wouldn't find it in tournament play, wasn't RPGA legal because both areas didn't presume people read everything in Dragon since it only existed in print, dissemination couldn't be presumed). I think the Barbarian and Cavalier classes, which weren't core classes in AD&D's original core books, were floated in Dragon prior to appearing in the hardcover AD&D book Unearthed Arcana (which was basically the Xanthar's of AD&D, those classes, some race variants IIRC, magic items and spells, and a new stat Comeliness that didn't go over very well if I remembered. Those who could assign their rolls used Comeliness as a dump stat, populating Greyhawk and early Forgotten Realms with some really ugly folk.
I recall that 4e had a Witch class, as well as a Shaman, Swordmage, Runepriest (A divine rune caster), and a Warlord class.
Grant it, 4e also had roughly a total of 46 base classes. Some were more simplistic then others and then you also had the paragon paths and epic destinies to further customize.......it was rather crazy now that I'm comparing it to how simple 5e's class system is.....
Artificers by the book are not casting spells in the strictest sense, there is a section in the Artificer spell casting section called "THE MAGIC OF ARTIFICE" that goes into detail on this. Instead of spending time in meditation/study preparing spells like the other prepared casters, they are building little gizmos/brewing potions that have the same effects as spells that they will use later in the day. Mechanically these end up being virtually the same thing, so instead of spending a lot of time developing, balancing and play-testing a whole new system that had an end result of being 90% the same as the existing spell casting mechanic, WotC decided that re-flavored spell casting was how they would represent Artificers. This is similar to a lot of the opinions on why the mental-powers-that-shall-not-be-named-lest-the-topic-go-off-rails should end up being spellcasting with a "pretend you do this with your mind, instead of the weave" disclaimer on it, or something similar if they are ever implemented in 5E.
Yes, Enworld is filled with more "passionate" people than here. I think less classes would be a mistake, which they seem to want more there than we do here.
Please check out my homebrew, I would appreciate feedback:
Spells, Monsters, Subclasses, Races, Arcknight Class, Occultist Class, World, Enigmatic Esoterica forms
Did someone say the P word? I could have sworn I heard it...
noooo. no-one would ever say that in a game that LITERALLY depends on your imagination.
dont be sarcastic.
“I will take responsibility for what I have done. [...] If must fall, I will rise each time a better man.” ― Brandon Sanderson, Oathbringer.
I don't think they meant present, they meant the silent p word that has "blasted" the minds of this thread, so to speak....
pSYKE!
Jander Sunstar is the thinking person's Drizzt, fight me.
I saw some people in the Enworld thread suggest some kind of Scholar or Expert class. Basically, someone who is really good an lore and analyzing enemies, using that to their advantage in combat. Not a rogue, though. Not a rogue. Wouldn't get sneak attack, wouldn't focus on Dexterity, and so on. I thought the idea was cool, but don't think it's really needed in the game. I do want about 7ish more classes, maybe a couple more.
Please check out my homebrew, I would appreciate feedback:
Spells, Monsters, Subclasses, Races, Arcknight Class, Occultist Class, World, Enigmatic Esoterica forms
7 new classes?
That's WAY TOO MANY! Where'd you fit them all?
Also, what would they be?
Frequent Eladrin || They/Them, but accept all pronouns
Luz Noceda would like to remind you that you're worth loving!
There's probably another that I'm failing the Intel Check on... And that's just from this thread.
Replace the Summoner with a Runecaster or Blood Hunter, and that list is good to go.
(I think the Shaman could be the summoner, and those are just the classes I really want in the game. There are more that could be possibly added.)
Please check out my homebrew, I would appreciate feedback:
Spells, Monsters, Subclasses, Races, Arcknight Class, Occultist Class, World, Enigmatic Esoterica forms
As I said previously, I don't see a problem with the Shaman having a subclass that overlaps with a pure Summoner, but that's not the same as what I am envisioning.
And I understand that, too. It's just different from what I personally assume how a Shaman would work. The more I think about shamans, the more I want to make them be users of Pact Magic.
Please check out my homebrew, I would appreciate feedback:
Spells, Monsters, Subclasses, Races, Arcknight Class, Occultist Class, World, Enigmatic Esoterica forms
It would make the number a nice even 20 though so....
That being said, I'm not sure if we need that many, at least not all at once. I still think making Blood Hunter an official class with a few more sub-classes would be a good start since it already exists in a semi-official-ish form. Otherwise, there are four options I would like explored. A Sword-mage/Gish class, a Shaman/Spirit Summoner-like class, a Warlord/Martial utility class, and a Psionic style class.
"Meddle not in the affairs of dragons, for thou art crunchy and taste good with ketchup."
Characters for Tenebris Sine Fine
RoughCoronet's Greater Wills
That sounds like The Savant, which I think was first introduced as a concept (a sort of derivative cleric or magic user) for AD&D in (original print) Dragon 140 (I found a good scan of the issue and the article, not sure if we're supposed to post links to that stuff though, same as the Witch class I mentioned today that a GM Guilder adapted from a Dragon issue that came out a couple of years later).
Jander Sunstar is the thinking person's Drizzt, fight me.
Now I'm just confused.
Twice now when I've suggested a Summoner base class, you have very specifically (and sorta hypocritically, compared to 20 or so pages ago) said it could just be a subclass of the Shaman. I have, twice, agreed with you there could certainly be overlap between them, but that the idea of a summoning character only being a subclass of a Shaman doesn't jive with what I have described. And now you go on to say that that's different than what you envisioned.... which is exactly what I said, both times?
As for how that relates to Pact Magic, I'm not really sure what that has to do with my class concept. It's only related to yours, that we agree could have a little overlap in their creative space.
I wasn't really aware there was a Witch class in previous editions, even after I made the Occultist.
Please check out my homebrew, I would appreciate feedback:
Spells, Monsters, Subclasses, Races, Arcknight Class, Occultist Class, World, Enigmatic Esoterica forms
Sorry if there was some miscommunication. I meant that the base Shaman class would be a summoner. I would envision the subclasses as having different spirits to summon (fey, beasts, deceased humanoid, celestial). I don't think I ever stated the Summoner would be a subclass of Shaman, I meant that the Shaman would be the Summoner class.
Also, the Pact Magic thing might not relate to your vision of the Shaman, but I was just thinking out loud.
Please check out my homebrew, I would appreciate feedback:
Spells, Monsters, Subclasses, Races, Arcknight Class, Occultist Class, World, Enigmatic Esoterica forms
Witch- right off the bat, witches in D&D are Fey Patron warlocks as witches aren't much in dnd lore.
Rune Caster: Well, that's something that'd make a nice wizard subclass, I think.
P word (guessing Psionics): Mystic is a good class, but also subclasses do work as well.
Shaman / Summoner - Evoker / Conjuration wizard subclass, mixed with magic tattoos. Not truly necessary.
Warlord - Mastermind Rogue or a Crown Paladin or even a Purple Dragon Knight if ever I saw one (Purple Dragon Knight has its merits)
Gish - you could say Ranger, Bladesinger, or even way of four elements monk here, but this is one thing that I think would make a pretty stable full class. However, you could argue that it is also the Bladesinger or the Hexblade or any number of other subclasses (this one has been used so often!)
I instead give you my following new class ideas:
Oh. Just really the Mystic and the Messenger here, shame. Oh, and Erudite.
Frequent Eladrin || They/Them, but accept all pronouns
Luz Noceda would like to remind you that you're worth loving!
Also, how in the name of moonshine is this page still GOING!!!!!!
Frequent Eladrin || They/Them, but accept all pronouns
Luz Noceda would like to remind you that you're worth loving!
A character class in Dragon basically worked as Unearthed Arcana now, but without the polling (you likely wouldn't find it in tournament play, wasn't RPGA legal because both areas didn't presume people read everything in Dragon since it only existed in print, dissemination couldn't be presumed). I think the Barbarian and Cavalier classes, which weren't core classes in AD&D's original core books, were floated in Dragon prior to appearing in the hardcover AD&D book Unearthed Arcana (which was basically the Xanthar's of AD&D, those classes, some race variants IIRC, magic items and spells, and a new stat Comeliness that didn't go over very well if I remembered. Those who could assign their rolls used Comeliness as a dump stat, populating Greyhawk and early Forgotten Realms with some really ugly folk.
Jander Sunstar is the thinking person's Drizzt, fight me.
I recall that 4e had a Witch class, as well as a Shaman, Swordmage, Runepriest (A divine rune caster), and a Warlord class.
Grant it, 4e also had roughly a total of 46 base classes. Some were more simplistic then others and then you also had the paragon paths and epic destinies to further customize.......it was rather crazy now that I'm comparing it to how simple 5e's class system is.....
"Meddle not in the affairs of dragons, for thou art crunchy and taste good with ketchup."
Characters for Tenebris Sine Fine
RoughCoronet's Greater Wills