So go write the rules for that game. That way we can all play it and bask in your goodness. :P
😂😂
Pay me and I will.
How much? (Side note, how much food can someone survive on? You don't need that much, right?)
I dunno.... I’m not what one would consider svelte. 😉
If you could honestly afford to pay me a living salary to replace the completely out-of-work that I’ve been since Covid started I will write you whatever you want. Heck, if you can afford to pay me a living salary I’d even manage to bring THAC0 back if you wanted me to.
So go write the rules for that game. That way we can all play it and bask in your goodness. :P
😂😂
Pay me and I will.
How much? (Side note, how much food can someone survive on? You don't need that much, right?)
I dunno.... I’m not what one would consider svelte. 😉
If you could honestly afford to pay me a living salary to replace the completely out-of-work that I’ve been since Covid started I will write you whatever you want. Heck, if you can afford to pay me a living salary I’d even manage to bring THAC0 back if you wanted me to.
Hmm, if we manage to get twenty or so people together that might actually be achievable. ;-) Or head over to Patreon, some people there earn several thousand dollars a month by painting monster minis or writing 5e statblocks... I think there's a decent chance to find an audience for a 5e / Pf2 hybrid. ;-)
It shows that pathfinder clearly still cares about people who want a larger variety of playstyles and themes.
Pity the pathfinder core rules are so much of a mess, as their character design and class system is amazing. I love 5e for the core rules, but the class and character system is downright depressing.
I keep reading this again and again, but I still don't understand what's so messy about the PF rules?
From reading the CRB it sounds super straight-forward, even more than 5e with all its corner cases (e.g. Shield Master Shove can only be done after the attack and the extra rule about Bonus Action Spells only allowing for Cantrips as Actions...)
Honestly, if you really want flexibility in character types, you shouldn't be adding a lot more classes -- you should be adding a lot more customization points to a small number of classes (the extreme case being that you don't have classes at all; ponder combining Mutants and Masterminds with 5e).
That could be cool. A "Morpher" subclass, but I wouldn't include it in the whole class. The other ideas are cool, too. I would probably make the subclasses be Blood Magic, Bone Magic, Familiar Magic, Morphing Magic, Hex Magic, Brewing Magic, and so on.
Of course. Druids are the Morphing class, but having a subclass dedicated to shape changing outside of a druid would be cool. Maybe there could be a mechanic where you can choose between a list of beasts and maybe even a monstrosity that you can change into, kind of like how a totem barbarian chooses their totem effects at different levels.
It would also be nice to see another sub-class utilize familiars in interesting ways.
Those are cool ideas. I don't know how I'd do the mechanics for shapeshifting as a witch, but I'll keep that in mind.
I agree. Familiars are cool, and witches in folklore use them for different purposes. (Unrelated, the Witch spell list could have create homunculus on it.)
Maybe a witch can pick one CR 0 beast at first level but at later levels, they can pick a CR 1-2 monstrosity. To keep it separate from the druids list of beasts.
I like your take on subclasses, but I think it should be kept open how dark a witch's powers are.
One thing all witches should get is a coven mechanic. Where the witch can in some way spend their own spell slots to empower the spells of their allies, or vice versa.
Cool ideas, I'll keep those in mind. I'm definitely going to keep the witch's theme dark if/when I make it. The coven mechanic is definitely a needed ability. I can give that to them.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Please check out my homebrew, I would appreciate feedback:
Heh. That's the thing, Pantagruel. I wouldn't be at all averse to a classless, point-build variation of D&D. Point-build games are awesome, they really are. Nobody ever makes point-build games tuned to a specific genre, though. Much as I enjoy GURPS or Savage Worlds, 'universal' systems do tend to lose something when played outside a modern or near-modern setting without a lot of homebrew and house ruling. Savage Worlds tried to get around that with their various settings books and it works well enough, but man. Now I really want to see how a point-build D&D system would work.
For me I don’t mind if there are more classes, but I agree that any new class should be distinct from what’s already there. Yuri’s ideas for a shaman were the first true distinction for a shaman I could see, although it is very close to a path of the totem barb until she got to the spells.
Really I’d prefer to see the classes we already have tweaked to be more important and distinct than they already are. For example, what’s the point of being a rogue? Besides sneak attack and bonus action hide, anyone can learn proficiency with thieves tools and anyone can search for traps.
You ask a question that is so easy to answer I'm staggered btw. how do we cover everyone's idea of what a witch is? Subclasses. nature witch, fey witch, crone, curses, cauldrons, brews? All work as subclasses. Every witch gets a familiar and the ability to cackle to make their spells work, you know, basic thematic witch stuff.
That's just saying "Play whatever class you want to play, and you're allowed to change the cosmetics of your verbal, somatic, and material components". Which you can already do.
Heh. That's the thing, Pantagruel. I wouldn't be at all averse to a classless, point-build variation of D&D. Point-build games are awesome, they really are. Nobody ever makes point-build games tuned to a specific genre, though. Much as I enjoy GURPS or Savage Worlds, 'universal' systems do tend to lose something when played outside a modern or near-modern setting without a lot of homebrew and house ruling. Savage Worlds tried to get around that with their various settings books and it works well enough, but man. Now I really want to see how a point-build D&D system would work.
It's inevitable that you'll lose flavor when you add flexibility, because limitations are a significant chunk of flavor.
I keep seeing people be like "we need a witch class." We have three witch classes. Warlock, which is defined as a "male practitioner of witchcraft," druid (which is based on the Celtic druids and bears parallels to Wiccan practices, particularly with herbs and other natural sources of magic. Circle of Land and Stars especially), and Nature Cleric. We don't need a witch class, because you can literally reflavor one or all three of the classes I just mentioned into witches.
The key thing to remember about new classes: How do you make them unique, fill a niche that doesn't already exist, or otherwise not step on the toes of the existing classes? How do you make something that wouldn't just be better as a subclass? That's why I don't think we really *need* new classes in 5e right now. We have all the main thematic niches filled.
I disagree. Warlocks are dark practitioners of arcane magic, but they are not witches. Druids are not witches, and neither are clerics. A witch would get spellcasting, a spell list that is a combination of the voodoo themed spells from wizards, warlocks, and clerics, as well as subclasses based on their source of power. They'd choose their subclass at level 1, have a d6 hit dice, use Charisma or Intelligence as their spellcasting ability, and have a mechanic that lets them share their spell slots called Coven Magic (which is nonexistent in 5e).
Is there anything in 5e that lets you use bones or blood to cast spells? Is there a subclass devoted to empowering yourself through your familiar? No, there's not. That means there's a thematic niche to be filled.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Please check out my homebrew, I would appreciate feedback:
Heh. That's the thing, Pantagruel. I wouldn't be at all averse to a classless, point-build variation of D&D. Point-build games are awesome, they really are. Nobody ever makes point-build games tuned to a specific genre, though. Much as I enjoy GURPS or Savage Worlds, 'universal' systems do tend to lose something when played outside a modern or near-modern setting without a lot of homebrew and house ruling. Savage Worlds tried to get around that with their various settings books and it works well enough, but man. Now I really want to see how a point-build D&D system would work.
I could see a point based system, I like Shadowrun as an example. Of course the problem with Shadowrun is its point system has caused its character generation to be extremely complex and every character needs a doctoral review to make sure the character was made correctly. But there is definitely an allure to being able to create the scout/spy parry member I have in my head that actually matters to the team because no one else has those skills by default.
Of course. Experience in the game does not make one a grognard. Grognardism only arises when one develops a singular hatred of and obstinate resistance to any form of progress beyond, being charitable, whatever was in the 2e core books. If it wasn't around by the time the 2e core books were printed, they don't want it - and that extends to mechanics, classes, species, worlds, concepts, subconcepts, ideas, dreams, hopes, and desires. It really is just immensely frustrating.
You were not around for it, but simply dismiss the reasons why players with vastly more experience than you might think all this is nonsense. Sorry, that is not gatekeeping. That is simply experience being the basis for wisdom.
Trust me! It's not gatekeeping if I'm older and 1000% more wise than you!
Please. *eye roll* You don't get to do the dictionary definition of gatekeeping and pretend that you're not gatekeeping because you're so much smarter than us. Wow, thanks, jerk. I'm just going to shut up and begin worshipping our grognard overlords now. You've convinced me! I have no right to my own opinion because I have less wrinkles than you. Nice to know, Pop.
In the past few threads, I've seen you support gatekeeping at least 3 times and justify it by being older and playing the game longer. I can't wait for you to be cancelled.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Please check out my homebrew, I would appreciate feedback:
Is there anything in 5e that lets you use bones or blood to cast spells? Is there a subclass devoted to empowering yourself through your familiar? No, there's not. That means there's a thematic niche to be filled.
You can use bones and blood as an arcane focus if the DM says you can, and there are a small number of spells where having a bit of the target makes a difference. As for familiars, chain pact warlock. I mean, I'm perfectly willing to admit that there's things D&D can't build well, but you aren't even trying.
Is there anything in 5e that lets you use bones or blood to cast spells? Is there a subclass devoted to empowering yourself through your familiar? No, there's not. That means there's a thematic niche to be filled.
You can use bones and blood as an arcane focus if the DM says you can, and there are a small number of spells where having a bit of the target makes a difference. As for familiars, chain pact warlock. I mean, I'm perfectly willing to admit that there's things D&D can't build well, but you aren't even trying.
Oh, so now our niche depends on the DM allowing a homebrew rule that still doesn't give us what we want? Great. That sounds like it's going to work out for all people who want to play a witch.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Please check out my homebrew, I would appreciate feedback:
I wasn't angry in my previous post. I was in the one quoting Vince. But I'm not trying to start a fight with anyone. I was merely outlining to Pantagruel the impracticality of a class niche depending on DMs ruling in favor of a homebrew rule.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Please check out my homebrew, I would appreciate feedback:
As for familiars, chain pact warlock. I mean, I'm perfectly willing to admit that there's things D&D can't build well, but you aren't even trying.
You have that backwards -- Pact of the Chain empowers the familiar, not the Warlock. And that last bit can only be taken as hostile in this context, which does nothing to further the discussion.
To be fair to Third_Sundering, he and a few of us have been trying to provide fun and constructive ideas for different class ideas and how they would work mechanically to move on from the earlier arguments, or discuss the merit of Pathfinder’s system to D&D’s. So when others come and take jabs at every idea or post that basically amount to “you can homebrew it” , “you didn’t come up with a whole 1-20 Lv class build on the spot so it’s not worth talking about”, or “it sounds even a little bit like something another class or sub-class can kinda do so your idea is trash” (paraphrasing of course).....it can get really irritating, even if their intent isn’t to pick a fight or be rude.
Obviously we shouldn’t devolve into a forum war but the frustration is understandable. This is a very passionate topic for some people. This thread is to discuss the lack of classes. Makes sense some of the people who want more classes would enjoy spitballing ideas for new classes.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
"Meddle not in the affairs of dragons, for thou art crunchy and taste good with ketchup."
So go write the rules for that game. That way we can all play it and bask in your goodness. :P
😂😂
Pay me and I will.
How much? (Side note, how much food can someone survive on? You don't need that much, right?)
I dunno.... I’m not what one would consider svelte. 😉
If you could honestly afford to pay me a living salary to replace the completely out-of-work that I’ve been since Covid started I will write you whatever you want. Heck, if you can afford to pay me a living salary I’d even manage to bring THAC0 back if you wanted me to.
Hmm, if we manage to get twenty or so people together that might actually be achievable. ;-) Or head over to Patreon, some people there earn several thousand dollars a month by painting monster minis or writing 5e statblocks... I think there's a decent chance to find an audience for a 5e / Pf2 hybrid. ;-)
That’s a thing? Holy cow. At the rate I homebrew sometimes....
I dunno.... I’m not what one would consider svelte. 😉
If you could honestly afford to pay me a living salary to replace the completely out-of-work that I’ve been since Covid started I will write you whatever you want. Heck, if you can afford to pay me a living salary I’d even manage to bring THAC0 back if you wanted me to.
Creating Epic Boons on DDB
DDB Buyers' Guide
Hardcovers, DDB & You
Content Troubleshooting
Hmm, if we manage to get twenty or so people together that might actually be achievable. ;-) Or head over to Patreon, some people there earn several thousand dollars a month by painting monster minis or writing 5e statblocks... I think there's a decent chance to find an audience for a 5e / Pf2 hybrid. ;-)
I definitely feel that a system like that is basically an open goal, waiting for someone able to come along and exploit it.
Thank you for the link. I somehow missed the post while skimming the dndbeyond notifications.
Honestly, if you really want flexibility in character types, you shouldn't be adding a lot more classes -- you should be adding a lot more customization points to a small number of classes (the extreme case being that you don't have classes at all; ponder combining Mutants and Masterminds with 5e).
Cool ideas, I'll keep those in mind. I'm definitely going to keep the witch's theme dark if/when I make it. The coven mechanic is definitely a needed ability. I can give that to them.
Please check out my homebrew, I would appreciate feedback:
Spells, Monsters, Subclasses, Races, Arcknight Class, Occultist Class, World, Enigmatic Esoterica forms
Heh. That's the thing, Pantagruel. I wouldn't be at all averse to a classless, point-build variation of D&D. Point-build games are awesome, they really are. Nobody ever makes point-build games tuned to a specific genre, though. Much as I enjoy GURPS or Savage Worlds, 'universal' systems do tend to lose something when played outside a modern or near-modern setting without a lot of homebrew and house ruling. Savage Worlds tried to get around that with their various settings books and it works well enough, but man. Now I really want to see how a point-build D&D system would work.
Please do not contact or message me.
For me I don’t mind if there are more classes, but I agree that any new class should be distinct from what’s already there. Yuri’s ideas for a shaman were the first true distinction for a shaman I could see, although it is very close to a path of the totem barb until she got to the spells.
Really I’d prefer to see the classes we already have tweaked to be more important and distinct than they already are. For example, what’s the point of being a rogue? Besides sneak attack and bonus action hide, anyone can learn proficiency with thieves tools and anyone can search for traps.
That's just saying "Play whatever class you want to play, and you're allowed to change the cosmetics of your verbal, somatic, and material components". Which you can already do.
Witch isn't a class. It's a skin.
It's inevitable that you'll lose flavor when you add flexibility, because limitations are a significant chunk of flavor.
I disagree. Warlocks are dark practitioners of arcane magic, but they are not witches. Druids are not witches, and neither are clerics. A witch would get spellcasting, a spell list that is a combination of the voodoo themed spells from wizards, warlocks, and clerics, as well as subclasses based on their source of power. They'd choose their subclass at level 1, have a d6 hit dice, use Charisma or Intelligence as their spellcasting ability, and have a mechanic that lets them share their spell slots called Coven Magic (which is nonexistent in 5e).
Is there anything in 5e that lets you use bones or blood to cast spells? Is there a subclass devoted to empowering yourself through your familiar? No, there's not. That means there's a thematic niche to be filled.
Please check out my homebrew, I would appreciate feedback:
Spells, Monsters, Subclasses, Races, Arcknight Class, Occultist Class, World, Enigmatic Esoterica forms
I could see a point based system, I like Shadowrun as an example. Of course the problem with Shadowrun is its point system has caused its character generation to be extremely complex and every character needs a doctoral review to make sure the character was made correctly. But there is definitely an allure to being able to create the scout/spy parry member I have in my head that actually matters to the team because no one else has those skills by default.
Trust me! It's not gatekeeping if I'm older and 1000% more wise than you!
Please. *eye roll* You don't get to do the dictionary definition of gatekeeping and pretend that you're not gatekeeping because you're so much smarter than us. Wow, thanks, jerk. I'm just going to shut up and begin worshipping our grognard overlords now. You've convinced me! I have no right to my own opinion because I have less wrinkles than you. Nice to know, Pop.
In the past few threads, I've seen you support gatekeeping at least 3 times and justify it by being older and playing the game longer. I can't wait for you to be cancelled.
Please check out my homebrew, I would appreciate feedback:
Spells, Monsters, Subclasses, Races, Arcknight Class, Occultist Class, World, Enigmatic Esoterica forms
You can use bones and blood as an arcane focus if the DM says you can, and there are a small number of spells where having a bit of the target makes a difference. As for familiars, chain pact warlock. I mean, I'm perfectly willing to admit that there's things D&D can't build well, but you aren't even trying.
Okay folks, I know we're all passionate but let's calm down. It's not worth getting into yet *another* forum fight.
Oh, so now our niche depends on the DM allowing a homebrew rule that still doesn't give us what we want? Great. That sounds like it's going to work out for all people who want to play a witch.
Please check out my homebrew, I would appreciate feedback:
Spells, Monsters, Subclasses, Races, Arcknight Class, Occultist Class, World, Enigmatic Esoterica forms
Third_Sundering, calm down. It's not worth it.
I wasn't angry in my previous post. I was in the one quoting Vince. But I'm not trying to start a fight with anyone. I was merely outlining to Pantagruel the impracticality of a class niche depending on DMs ruling in favor of a homebrew rule.
Please check out my homebrew, I would appreciate feedback:
Spells, Monsters, Subclasses, Races, Arcknight Class, Occultist Class, World, Enigmatic Esoterica forms
You have that backwards -- Pact of the Chain empowers the familiar, not the Warlock. And that last bit can only be taken as hostile in this context, which does nothing to further the discussion.
To be fair to Third_Sundering, he and a few of us have been trying to provide fun and constructive ideas for different class ideas and how they would work mechanically to move on from the earlier arguments, or discuss the merit of Pathfinder’s system to D&D’s. So when others come and take jabs at every idea or post that basically amount to “you can homebrew it” , “you didn’t come up with a whole 1-20 Lv class build on the spot so it’s not worth talking about”, or “it sounds even a little bit like something another class or sub-class can kinda do so your idea is trash” (paraphrasing of course).....it can get really irritating, even if their intent isn’t to pick a fight or be rude.
Obviously we shouldn’t devolve into a forum war but the frustration is understandable. This is a very passionate topic for some people. This thread is to discuss the lack of classes. Makes sense some of the people who want more classes would enjoy spitballing ideas for new classes.
"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’s a thing? Holy cow. At the rate I homebrew sometimes....
Creating Epic Boons on DDB
DDB Buyers' Guide
Hardcovers, DDB & You
Content Troubleshooting