Added concentration, but I think I'll keep it as a bonus action. In order to create the spell's effects, you have to use a bonus action and then have to hit with an attack from a melee weapon. Up until you get extra attack, it's basically taking a bonus action and a whole action to cast a spell, assuming you hit with the attack. If it's really a problem, I'll change it to be an action at level 2, and then become a bonus action at later levels.
but you are basically allowing a free spell as a bonus action each turn??? you BA fireball and then take the attack action, doing both in one turn......
Yeah, that could be a problem. I'll make it an action first, and at level 11, it's a bonus action. That better?
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Please check out my homebrew, I would appreciate feedback:
It's not official, and will almost definitely never be published.
It's more official than the gunslinger
It got binned by WotC at least 3 years ago. At this point neither is official. They might revisit the concept for a future Artificer subclass at some point though. That would be nice.
For 6e would really like them to give us basically 6 'flavorless' base classes (magic guy, skills guy, fighty guy, gish, skirmisher, and whatever the half skills guy and half magic guy equivalent is. These would contain some core mechanics.
From there archtypes can provide the theme and more in depth mechanics. e.g. pick fighty guy and barbarian archtype for a barbarian. After that more exact features can be picked to make variants of that. e.g. berserker or storm herald. Or pick the 'gish' class, choose divine archtype for paladin, then narrow down to oath of devotion subclass.
This would be a very interesting take on the classes. I want it.
I like the focus on subclasses. I think the base classes have /most/ things adequately covered. What I would like to see is a decent gish (I like EK, but it doesn't really scratch the itch for a variety of reasons). A ranger subclass that opens up the sorcerer spell list I think would be pretty on-point. Back in the 1e days, rangers could use arcane magic, so I think that thematically, it's a decent fit and would likely make people happy who want that in your face melee user who blends blade and arcane magic.
But that wouldn't be the same as a class built from scratch. You're still bringing all the ranger baggage over. You'd still have favored terrain, favored enemy, tracking, and such. That's not a parallel to say a Magus from Pathfinder.
Not that a Ranger subclass that could grab some arcane spells from the wizard spell list and was some sort of arcane tracker sort wouldn't be fun. But it's not comparable to a dedicated class for an Arcane gish.
The subclasses, as they are, aren't the problem. The problem is that you cannot just use them to crowbar in a class from previous editions, because the base class always shows through. Druids subclasses always have to have wildshape even if they can use it for other things, fighters always have four attacks and action surge, and second wind, barbarians always have rage.
The game is "missing" several archetypical classes, as others have mentioned: A martial-focused, arcane, half caster (like the paladin and ranger are to divine and nature respectively). A spell-focused, nature, half caster, and a spell-focused, divine, half caster. I personally also miss the roles of support focused, martial, and defense-focused, martial, ala the Warlord, and the Warden. Which cannot easily be crowbarred into the fighter. There are other things as well, like a Witch, as an Int based mirror to the Warlocks charisma focus.
The fact that subclasses don't overhaul the base class to an extent only modify it at specific prechosen intervals is a fine limit, but it cannot be ignored. For example, if subclasses could modify the base class directly it would be easy enough to make a Witch subclass for the Warlock that uses Int in place of Charisma.
let me be clear...when I said that I think the bases are covered that means I do not think we need more base classes.
The very existence of this thread would indicate that this is incorrect. And several of us have identified specific holes, both new imagings and historically existing classes from older editions, that cannot adequately be recreated as subclasses to existing classes.
For 6e would really like them to give us basically 6 'flavorless' base classes (magic guy, skills guy, fighty guy, gish, skirmisher, and whatever the half skills guy and half magic guy equivalent is. These would contain some core mechanics.
From there archtypes can provide the theme and more in depth mechanics. e.g. pick fighty guy and barbarian archtype for a barbarian. After that more exact features can be picked to make variants of that. e.g. berserker or storm herald. Or pick the 'gish' class, choose divine archtype for paladin, then narrow down to oath of devotion subclass.
This would be a very interesting take on the classes. I want it.
Yeah, I'm not sure I'm on board, but it would be an interesting exercise.
It's not official, and will almost definitely never be published.
It's more official than the gunslinger
If you want to start measuring "officialness," I guess it does have the fact that it at one point was being playtested directly by WotC to be possibly put in the game, but they abandoned that subclass years ago. Now, it's just as official as the Gunslinger.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Please check out my homebrew, I would appreciate feedback:
I really like the options that are there for the classes, and sub classes. What I would like to see, are more classes like the fighter for example, that have little to no magic.
I like the focus on subclasses. I think the base classes have /most/ things adequately covered. What I would like to see is a decent gish (I like EK, but it doesn't really scratch the itch for a variety of reasons). A ranger subclass that opens up the sorcerer spell list I think would be pretty on-point. Back in the 1e days, rangers could use arcane magic, so I think that thematically, it's a decent fit and would likely make people happy who want that in your face melee user who blends blade and arcane magic.
But that wouldn't be the same as a class built from scratch. You're still bringing all the ranger baggage over. You'd still have favored terrain, favored enemy, tracking, and such. That's not a parallel to say a Magus from Pathfinder.
Not that a Ranger subclass that could grab some arcane spells from the wizard spell list and was some sort of arcane tracker sort wouldn't be fun. But it's not comparable to a dedicated class for an Arcane gish.
The subclasses, as they are, aren't the problem. The problem is that you cannot just use them to crowbar in a class from previous editions, because the base class always shows through. Druids subclasses always have to have wildshape even if they can use it for other things, fighters always have four attacks and action surge, and second wind, barbarians always have rage.
The game is "missing" several archetypical classes, as others have mentioned: A martial-focused, arcane, half caster (like the paladin and ranger are to divine and nature respectively). A spell-focused, nature, half caster, and a spell-focused, divine, half caster. I personally also miss the roles of support focused, martial, and defense-focused, martial, ala the Warlord, and the Warden. Which cannot easily be crowbarred into the fighter. There are other things as well, like a Witch, as an Int based mirror to the Warlocks charisma focus.
The fact that subclasses don't overhaul the base class to an extent only modify it at specific prechosen intervals is a fine limit, but it cannot be ignored. For example, if subclasses could modify the base class directly it would be easy enough to make a Witch subclass for the Warlock that uses Int in place of Charisma.
let me be clear...when I said that I think the bases are covered that means I do not think we need more base classes.
The very existence of this thread would indicate that this is incorrect. And several of us have identified specific holes, both new imagings and historically existing classes from older editions, that cannot adequately be recreated as subclasses to existing classes.
The existence of this thread has little to do with what crzyhawk thinks. Therefore the statement that was made is correct, since it was saying that they thought there was no need. Their statement of a lack of a need for more classes is not mutually exclusive with others in this thread wanting or getting more classes. I don't think that there needs to be more classes, but I would not mind having more.
I think I'm slowly coming around to the arcane paladin thing. The swordmage from 4e was interesting enough, and the various aegis's make for subclasses. Still not sold on psions, although shaper, telepath, egoist, etc. make for subclasses. Then again, I could see those distributed as subclasses for other classes too.
It's not official, and will almost definitely never be published.
It's more official than the gunslinger
If you want to start measuring "officialness," I guess it does have the fact that it at one point was being playtested directly by WotC to be possibly put in the game, but they abandoned that subclass years ago. Now, it's just as official as the Gunslinger.
Yeah all that to say, a good non magical archer/gunslinger would be a great class
On a side note: does it bother anyone else when people are just automatically scornful and dismissive of Mercer's work? E.g. "the (Exandrian) Gunslinger sucks, it's just one guy's crappy homebrew people only like 'cuz he's famous", or dismissing the blood hunter out of hand as just Shitty Edgelord Murderhobo Homebrew. I always hated that shit, the idea that absolutely nobody except J-Craw and maybe Mearls is allowed to be a "real" D&D content creator. Like, c'mon people. C'mon. We have been given the most convincing possible evidence that Matthew Mercer is allowed to call himself a "Real" D&D content creator. Same with Keith Baker, who is not an employee at Wizards. Yet, he can also present the most compelling possible evidence of his "Real" creator credentials.
Come on, folks. There's being dismissive of nonsensical idiocy like Two Goblins in a Trench Coat, and there's being pissed off at somebody else for being more successful than you are. Stahppit.
On a side note: does it bother anyone else when people are just automatically scornful and dismissive of Mercer's work? E.g. "the (Exandrian) Gunslinger sucks, it's just one guy's crappy homebrew people only like 'cuz he's famous", or dismissing the blood hunter out of hand as just Shitty Edgelord Murderhobo Homebrew. I always hated that shit, the idea that absolutely nobody except J-Craw and maybe Mearls is allowed to be a "real" D&D content creator. Like, c'mon people. C'mon. We have been given the most convincing possible evidence that Matthew Mercer is allowed to call himself a "Real" D&D content creator. Same with Keith Baker, who is not an employee at Wizards. Yet, he can also present the most compelling possible evidence of his "Real" creator credentials.
Come on, folks. There's being dismissive of nonsensical idiocy like Two Goblins in a Trench Coat, and there's being pissed off at somebody else for being more successful than you are. Stahppit.
I was confused by this as well. Are we just going to pretend that WotC didn't give Mercer their official seal of approval, by publishing his world as official content?
A lot of folks seem to. They're especially nasty towards the blood hunter, and never mind that Wizards put a blood hunter monster stat block in the Wildmount book, complete with mechanics drawn from the DMGuild 'homebrew' class. Short of just putting it in a book outright, I can't think of a more Official Stamp of Officialness than that.
I've also found Mercer's Gunslinger subclass to be the best of the many gun-wielding homebrew subclasses. It made me want to play a fighter, which is surprisingly difficult.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
A fool pulls the leaves. A brute chops the trunk. A sage digs the roots.
While I haven’t really looked at the Gunslinger sub-class, I really like the Blood Hunter and really want to play one in a campaign. I’m surprised to hear that it gets so much hate though.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
"Meddle not in the affairs of dragons, for thou art crunchy and taste good with ketchup."
It's not official, and will almost definitely never be published.
Please check out my homebrew, I would appreciate feedback:
Spells, Monsters, Subclasses, Races, Arcknight Class, Occultist Class, World, Enigmatic Esoterica forms
Yeah, that could be a problem. I'll make it an action first, and at level 11, it's a bonus action. That better?
Please check out my homebrew, I would appreciate feedback:
Spells, Monsters, Subclasses, Races, Arcknight Class, Occultist Class, World, Enigmatic Esoterica forms
It's more official than the gunslinger
It got binned by WotC at least 3 years ago. At this point neither is official. They might revisit the concept for a future Artificer subclass at some point though. That would be nice.
Creating Epic Boons on DDB
DDB Buyers' Guide
Hardcovers, DDB & You
Content Troubleshooting
This would be a very interesting take on the classes. I want it.
The very existence of this thread would indicate that this is incorrect. And several of us have identified specific holes, both new imagings and historically existing classes from older editions, that cannot adequately be recreated as subclasses to existing classes.
Yeah, I'm not sure I'm on board, but it would be an interesting exercise.
If you want to start measuring "officialness," I guess it does have the fact that it at one point was being playtested directly by WotC to be possibly put in the game, but they abandoned that subclass years ago. Now, it's just as official as the Gunslinger.
Please check out my homebrew, I would appreciate feedback:
Spells, Monsters, Subclasses, Races, Arcknight Class, Occultist Class, World, Enigmatic Esoterica forms
I really like the options that are there for the classes, and sub classes. What I would like to see, are more classes like the fighter for example, that have little to no magic.
The existence of this thread has little to do with what crzyhawk thinks. Therefore the statement that was made is correct, since it was saying that they thought there was no need. Their statement of a lack of a need for more classes is not mutually exclusive with others in this thread wanting or getting more classes. I don't think that there needs to be more classes, but I would not mind having more.
I think I'm slowly coming around to the arcane paladin thing. The swordmage from 4e was interesting enough, and the various aegis's make for subclasses. Still not sold on psions, although shaper, telepath, egoist, etc. make for subclasses. Then again, I could see those distributed as subclasses for other classes too.
I think the arcane paladin could have made a good paladin subclass, if subclasses were designed to be more influential on the main classes build.
I've created an arcane paladin, and it is not a Magus.
Please check out my homebrew, I would appreciate feedback:
Spells, Monsters, Subclasses, Races, Arcknight Class, Occultist Class, World, Enigmatic Esoterica forms
Yeah all that to say, a good non magical archer/gunslinger would be a great class
A New DM up against the World
On a side note: does it bother anyone else when people are just automatically scornful and dismissive of Mercer's work? E.g. "the (Exandrian) Gunslinger sucks, it's just one guy's crappy homebrew people only like 'cuz he's famous", or dismissing the blood hunter out of hand as just Shitty Edgelord Murderhobo Homebrew. I always hated that shit, the idea that absolutely nobody except J-Craw and maybe Mearls is allowed to be a "real" D&D content creator. Like, c'mon people. C'mon. We have been given the most convincing possible evidence that Matthew Mercer is allowed to call himself a "Real" D&D content creator. Same with Keith Baker, who is not an employee at Wizards. Yet, he can also present the most compelling possible evidence of his "Real" creator credentials.
Come on, folks. There's being dismissive of nonsensical idiocy like Two Goblins in a Trench Coat, and there's being pissed off at somebody else for being more successful than you are. Stahppit.
Please do not contact or message me.
I was confused by this as well. Are we just going to pretend that WotC didn't give Mercer their official seal of approval, by publishing his world as official content?
A lot of folks seem to. They're especially nasty towards the blood hunter, and never mind that Wizards put a blood hunter monster stat block in the Wildmount book, complete with mechanics drawn from the DMGuild 'homebrew' class. Short of just putting it in a book outright, I can't think of a more Official Stamp of Officialness than that.
Please do not contact or message me.
I agree, Yurei. I've never really completely experienced a Blood Hunter in play, but the class deserves more than it currently gets.
Please check out my homebrew, I would appreciate feedback:
Spells, Monsters, Subclasses, Races, Arcknight Class, Occultist Class, World, Enigmatic Esoterica forms
I've also found Mercer's Gunslinger subclass to be the best of the many gun-wielding homebrew subclasses. It made me want to play a fighter, which is surprisingly difficult.
A fool pulls the leaves. A brute chops the trunk. A sage digs the roots.
My Improved Lineage System
While I haven’t really looked at the Gunslinger sub-class, I really like the Blood Hunter and really want to play one in a campaign. I’m surprised to hear that it gets so much hate though.
"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