Yep, my thoughts exactly. Out of combat, Samiya is meant to be an archdruid, read: whatever your druid can do, Samiya can do better (until level 17 or so). If a spell is on the druid list, assume she has access to it. Samiya can talk to and command any animal or plant, control the weather, raise giant menhir stones with ancient wards, telepathically contact other druid conclaves at indeterminate distances etc. Why should I then need to foul up my pretty stat block with the shape water cantrip? Moreover, why should I be restricted from adding spells to her list that aren't available to a druid? Enlarge/reduce comes to mind as a spell that would be valuable to a druid with animal companions, despite not featuring on the druid list.*
*The animal growth spell in 3e accomplished this task for a druid, but one of 3e's big problems was the redundancy.
You hit a good point there, but I still prefer the old system. Not just using spell slots, but also listing it under a monster's trait instead of as an action for monsters that do not use spell slots (like for most innate spellcasting traits). Listing the spells under a monster's general traits means they are detached from casting time, the monster can have action, reaction and bonus action spells all listed together in its one list of spells, while listing spellls under "actions" means you cannot give the monster any bonus action or reaction spell unless you add a secondary spell list in the appropriate section of the statblock. Using spell slots adds so much more flexibility to a monster that is a primary spellcaster. With spell slots, the monster can cast the same spell multiple times and upcast it if it wants, potentially making it a lot more devastating - instead of being limited to "1/day", "3/day"... at the spell's base level.
The drow matron mother is a prime example for how much spellcasting monsters suffer from using the new spellcasting. It is supposed to be a primary spellcaster, a level 20 cleric of Lolth. Its old statblock allowed one to upcast spells like hold person or banishment to target the entire party with, which can be absolutely devastating to them, especially when they lack good Charisma or Wisdom saving throws respectively. It could also upcast spirit guardians, a spell every cleric loves for how effective it is and how well it scales, and of course dispel magic to get rid of a character's high-level buff spells. The new statblock can no longer do that. It can only ever attempt to banish or hold person one single character, its spirit guardians will only ever deal 3d8 damage and its dispel magic has a high chance to fail against any spell of 4th level or higher.
I also have a practical example: a few days ago I ran the level 20 Don't Say Vecna one-shot, using Vecna's official statblock as the first phase of a two-phase boss fight. Vecna, the archlich, who cannot upcast his dispel magic due to no spell slots, failed to dispel a 5th-level spirit shroud one of my paladins had cast (with subtle spell, therefore dread counterspell was not possible) and went down the same round due to being unable to heal; and in general he just did not feel like how an archlich is supposed to feel - until he entered his second phase, where he had access to a full spell list with spell slots and bombarded the party with powerful spells.
In addition there is another can of worms that comes with the new spellcasting approach and that is replacing spells with non-spell magical effects like "arcane burst", "force blast", "fiery explosion", "rotten fate" and so forth, which hits every PC that is built to interact with spells cast by an enemy very hard, rendering their features useless - spellcasters with counterspell or dispel magic, Oath of the Ancients paladins, anyone with the mage slayer feat and so forth.
But I think we probably should go back to the contest now :-)
1) Isnt Legerdemain the name of the ability that Arcane Tricksters get at 3rd level? I think the full thing is "Mage Hand Legerdemain" but idk. Could have some overalp
2) For the random table, would you see any appeal in having it have 12 options and scale with your bardic inspiration die? (similar to the College of Spirits). That way, the trinkets for 7-8, 9-10, and 11-12 could offer more powerful options since they unlock at higher levels naturally. Having options that are more powerful than others would also make the 14th level double roll feature more appealing, imo
3) Armor of the Surreal seems like a fun idea. If a rogue can sacrifice their movement speed for advantage, I dont see why a bard couldnt sacrifice it for a temporary AC bonus. It might be easier just to make it that it reduces your movement speed to 0.
Another idea (just for you to play with) is could the 6th level feature offer some sort of alternative use of your bard spell slots? Kinda along the idea of Divine Smite, but playing into your theme of nonsensical things. My only reason for suggesting this is it would allow you to double down on the theme of a bard that doesnt rely fully on their spellcasting.
Overall, love the theme and cant wait to see how it turns out
1) Yes, good point. I'll consider this moving forward. Not sure what other name to call it right now. 2) I could do this, yes. Some of the charms are already more powerful than others. I'm struggling to think of two others. The table is somewhat short on combat abilities, hence the overall subclass is a bit less powerful than the spirits bard. The table as is hews very close to the "Fell Through a Rabbit Hole" ability of the same name in the MCG Expanded Worlds supplement I cited. 3) I am struggling to find a common thread connecting the existing 6th-level bard features, making this a tough job. Using spell slots is a nice idea. Perhaps one that causes a bit of delirium when the bard charms or inflicts psychic damage with a spell? I have a feeling I'll be iterating on this long after the competition is over.
Listing the spells under a monster's general traits means they are detached from casting time, the monster can have action, reaction and bonus action spells all listed together in its one list of spells, while listing spellls under "actions" means you cannot give the monster any bonus action or reaction spell unless you add a secondary spell list in the appropriate section of the statblock.
I don't see this as much of a disadvantage. Lumping all the spells together means that a DM has to be careful about the appropriate action time. Separating them makes it clear. Besides, most of the time a monster will have only one, if any, spell that uses a reaction or bonus action casting time, making the need for multiple lists less.
Using spell slots adds so much more flexibility to a monster that is a primary spellcaster. With spell slots, the monster can cast the same spell multiple times and upcast it if it wants, potentially making it a lot more devastating - instead of being limited to "1/day", "3/day"... at the spell's base level.
The drow matron mother is a prime example for how much spellcasting monsters suffer from using the new spellcasting. It is supposed to be a primary spellcaster, a level 20 cleric of Lolth. Its old statblock allowed one to upcast spells like hold person or banishment to target the entire party with, which can be absolutely devastating to them, especially when they lack good Charisma or Wisdom saving throws respectively. It could also upcast spirit guardians, a spell every cleric loves for how effective it is and how well it scales, and of course dispel magic to get rid of a character's high-level buff spells. The new statblock can no longer do that. It can only ever attempt to banish or hold person one single character, its spirit guardians will only ever deal 3d8 damage and its dispel magic has a high chance to fail against any spell of 4th level or higher.
I agree with you somewhat, although I see this is a case of poor design of the monster rather than a weakness of the new format. The devs could have simply added "hold person (nth-level version)" to the drow's spell list. This had previously been done with the innate spellcasters. That way the spell is more appropriately scaled AND the DM doesn't have to futz about with the PHB or whatever other manual where the spell resides to determine an appropriate level to upcast. I do that frequently in my own blocks, though the devs woefully under-use it. See the new spell block for the ki-rin for a proper example. The Vecna example makes this more clear. They could have given him dispel magic at a higher level. On the other hand, it must make the paladin feel pretty powerful to resist the dispel attempt of an archlich!
In addition there is another can of worms that comes with the new spellcasting approach and that is replacing spells with non-spell magical effects like "arcane burst", "force blast", "fiery explosion", "rotten fate" and so forth, which hits every PC that is built to interact with spells cast by an enemy very hard, rendering their features useless - spellcasters with counterspell or dispel magic, Oath of the Ancients paladins, anyone with the mage slayer feat and so forth.
This can of worms has been discussed at length, and it's not really a problem. It finally allows spellcasting monsters to justify their challenge rating. Previously, a player with those two spells could completely lock down a spellcaster, which is no fun at all.
But I think we probably should go back to the contest now :-)
This is a relevant discussion for participant though! What I will say overall, is that I'd find your case stronger in a world where the devs designed encounters with a format that goes into detail about monster tactics (see the 4e encounter design). In that world, options galore wouldn't be an issue because the DM could default to official guidance.
(Hey, Sposta, I think you accidentally put “Megablade” instead of “Mageblade” as the name of my entry. Just wanted to let you know.)
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Join the Competition of the Finest 'Brews XIX!(Or just spectate and vote, that's cool too. Either way, go there. It's awesome, and it'll be even more awesome if you join.)
(Hey, Sposta, I think you accidentally put “Megablade” instead of “Mageblade” as the name of my entry. Just wanted to let you know.)
Good lookin’ out. I fixed it. Thanks again.
Thanks.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Join the Competition of the Finest 'Brews XIX!(Or just spectate and vote, that's cool too. Either way, go there. It's awesome, and it'll be even more awesome if you join.)
Question: Can I submit a group of monsters for the DM category? All fit within the category of primordial forces (it would be a total of 5 monster statblocks).
P.S. I'm very late to the party, so I think I'll only be able to craft one brew for the competition. Summer classes are very intense; should've listened when everyone said don't take 4 classes over the summer lol *sighs disappointedly*
Question: Can I submit a group of monsters for the DM category? All fit within the category of primordial forces (it would be a total of 5 monster statblocks).
P.S. I'm very late to the party, so I think I'll only be able to craft one brew for the competition. Summer classes are very intense; should've listened when everyone said don't take 4 classes over the summer lol *sighs disappointedly*
I'm curious, what are the monsters?
I'm teaching this summer, it is a frantic experience. Good luck.
They are a series of elementals, all CR 5 to be used as more specific types of elements and can be conjured with conjure elemental.
The types are: Blizzard, Lightning, Magma, Mud, and Sandstorm elementals. Largely inspired by the pathfinder ruleset's same-named monsters, but statblocks were designed to be similar in power and function to the existing core elemental types in 5e.
Do magical shields rust? If the answer is yes, then I should probably add something to the Volcano Shield saying that it cant.
What I found about magic items in the DMG Pg. 141 "Magic Item Resilience Most magic items are objects of extraordinary artisanship. Thanks to a combination of careful crafting and magical reinforcement, a magic item is at least as durable as a nonmagical item of its kind. Most magic items, other than potions and scrolls, have resistance to all damage. Artifacts are practically indestructible, requiring extraordinary measures to destroy."
This suggests that magical shields would not rust under normal conditions by default, as the shield would likely be resistant to acid damage.
Further accentuating this, and more importantly, proving that the shield would be immune to rusting (excluding specific mention of corroding magic items), is the rust monster statblock. It states: "Rust Metal. Any nonmagical weapon made of metal that hits the rust monster corrodes..."
So no, by default, magical shields (or likely any metallic magic item) will not rust. Hope this helps!
They are a series of elementals, all CR 5 to be used as more specific types of elements and can be conjured with conjure elemental.
The types are: Blizzard, Lightning, Magma, Mud, and Sandstorm elementals. Largely inspired by the pathfinder ruleset's same-named monsters, but statblocks were designed to be similar in power and function to the existing core elemental types in 5e.
Reminds me of the para-elementals and quasi-elementals of yore. The para-elemental planes were magma (fire and earth), ooze (earth and water), ice (water and air), and smoke (fire and air). I like the quasi-elemental planes, which mixed one element with either positive or negative energy. For the positive planes you had lightning (air), mineral (earth), radiance (fire), and steam (water) and for the negative you had vacuum (air), dust (earth), ash (fire), and salt (water).
Reminds me of the para-elementals and quasi-elementals of yore. The para-elemental planes were magma (fire and earth), ooze (earth and water), ice (water and air), and smoke (fire and air). I like the quasi-elemental planes, which mixed one element with either positive or negative energy. For the positive planes you had lightning (air), mineral (earth), radiance (fire), and steam (water) and for the negative you had vacuum (air), dust (earth), ash (fire), and salt (water).
That's pretty much how they I designed them! The mud elemental has qualities that are somewhere between earth and water elementals, blizzard is water and air, magma is earth and fire, sandstorm is earth and air, and lightning is fire and air. Only one I didn't do was steam (fire and water) but I guess I could still do that!
That's pretty much how they I designed them! The mud elemental has qualities that are somewhere between earth and water elementals, blizzard is water and air, magma is earth and fire, sandstorm is earth and air, and lightning is fire and air. Only one I didn't do was steam (fire and water) but I guess I could still do that!
Make a vacuum elemental! It deals extra psychic damage to dogs.
That's pretty much how they I designed them! The mud elemental has qualities that are somewhere between earth and water elementals, blizzard is water and air, magma is earth and fire, sandstorm is earth and air, and lightning is fire and air. Only one I didn't do was steam (fire and water) but I guess I could still do that!
Make a vacuum elemental! It deals extra psychic damage to dogs.
I envision a vacuum elemental being a large transparent blob that engulfs creatures into its empty interior. Kinda like a gelatinous cube, but the creature takes cold damage instead of acid. Maybe its also immune to thunder damage, idk. When it dies, the vacuum collapses and all nearby creatures and objects are violently pulled inwards towards the space it used to occupy. The potential for something neat is definitely there.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Three-time Judge of the Competition of the Finest Brews! Come join us in making fun, unique homebrew and voting for your favorite entries!
If I were to make a vacuum elemental, I think I'd give it an attack that suffocates creatures within 5-feet of it. Something like that would likely be higher than CR 5 though since it could effectively one-shot a raging barbarian of any level. Also I would probably try to include that in a cosmic theme, rather than a primordial theme.
On a side note, I still don't know if I can use the list of elementals I posted before for this category lol
If I were to make a vacuum elemental, I think I'd give it an attack that suffocates creatures within 5-feet of it. Something like that would likely be higher than CR 5 though since it could effectively one-shot a raging barbarian of any level. Also I would probably try to include that in a cosmic theme, rather than a primordial theme.
Yep, an aura of suffocation and silence. Immune to thunder damage, attacks with force damage that pulls. I'd call vacuums pretty primordial in the truest sense of the word! This actually gives me a neat idea for a creation-of-life elemental based on the Miller-Urey experiments. It would be a chaotic blob of heated steam that occasionally sparks with lightning and spits out oozes.
Do magical shields rust? If the answer is yes, then I should probably add something to the Volcano Shield saying that it cant.
What I found about magic items in the DMG Pg. 141 "Magic Item Resilience Most magic items are objects of extraordinary artisanship. Thanks to a combination of careful crafting and magical reinforcement, a magic item is at least as durable as a nonmagical item of its kind. Most magic items, other than potions and scrolls, have resistance to all damage. Artifacts are practically indestructible, requiring extraordinary measures to destroy."
This suggests that magical shields would not rust under normal conditions by default, as the shield would likely be resistant to acid damage.
Further accentuating this, and more importantly, proving that the shield would be immune to rusting (excluding specific mention of corroding magic items), is the rust monster statblock. It states: "Rust Metal. Any nonmagical weapon made of metal that hits the rust monster corrodes..."
So no, by default, magical shields (or likely any metallic magic item) will not rust. Hope this helps!
Ok, and thanks for the info:) I guess I won't add that to the Volcano Shield then.
You hit a good point there, but I still prefer the old system. Not just using spell slots, but also listing it under a monster's trait instead of as an action for monsters that do not use spell slots (like for most innate spellcasting traits).
Listing the spells under a monster's general traits means they are detached from casting time, the monster can have action, reaction and bonus action spells all listed together in its one list of spells, while listing spellls under "actions" means you cannot give the monster any bonus action or reaction spell unless you add a secondary spell list in the appropriate section of the statblock.
Using spell slots adds so much more flexibility to a monster that is a primary spellcaster. With spell slots, the monster can cast the same spell multiple times and upcast it if it wants, potentially making it a lot more devastating - instead of being limited to "1/day", "3/day"... at the spell's base level.
The drow matron mother is a prime example for how much spellcasting monsters suffer from using the new spellcasting. It is supposed to be a primary spellcaster, a level 20 cleric of Lolth. Its old statblock allowed one to upcast spells like hold person or banishment to target the entire party with, which can be absolutely devastating to them, especially when they lack good Charisma or Wisdom saving throws respectively. It could also upcast spirit guardians, a spell every cleric loves for how effective it is and how well it scales, and of course dispel magic to get rid of a character's high-level buff spells. The new statblock can no longer do that. It can only ever attempt to banish or hold person one single character, its spirit guardians will only ever deal 3d8 damage and its dispel magic has a high chance to fail against any spell of 4th level or higher.
I also have a practical example: a few days ago I ran the level 20 Don't Say Vecna one-shot, using Vecna's official statblock as the first phase of a two-phase boss fight. Vecna, the archlich, who cannot upcast his dispel magic due to no spell slots, failed to dispel a 5th-level spirit shroud one of my paladins had cast (with subtle spell, therefore dread counterspell was not possible) and went down the same round due to being unable to heal; and in general he just did not feel like how an archlich is supposed to feel - until he entered his second phase, where he had access to a full spell list with spell slots and bombarded the party with powerful spells.
In addition there is another can of worms that comes with the new spellcasting approach and that is replacing spells with non-spell magical effects like "arcane burst", "force blast", "fiery explosion", "rotten fate" and so forth, which hits every PC that is built to interact with spells cast by an enemy very hard, rendering their features useless - spellcasters with counterspell or dispel magic, Oath of the Ancients paladins, anyone with the mage slayer feat and so forth.
But I think we probably should go back to the contest now :-)
1) Yes, good point. I'll consider this moving forward. Not sure what other name to call it right now.
2) I could do this, yes. Some of the charms are already more powerful than others. I'm struggling to think of two others. The table is somewhat short on combat abilities, hence the overall subclass is a bit less powerful than the spirits bard. The table as is hews very close to the "Fell Through a Rabbit Hole" ability of the same name in the MCG Expanded Worlds supplement I cited.
3) I am struggling to find a common thread connecting the existing 6th-level bard features, making this a tough job. Using spell slots is a nice idea. Perhaps one that causes a bit of delirium when the bard charms or inflicts psychic damage with a spell? I have a feeling I'll be iterating on this long after the competition is over.
I don't see this as much of a disadvantage. Lumping all the spells together means that a DM has to be careful about the appropriate action time. Separating them makes it clear. Besides, most of the time a monster will have only one, if any, spell that uses a reaction or bonus action casting time, making the need for multiple lists less.
I agree with you somewhat, although I see this is a case of poor design of the monster rather than a weakness of the new format. The devs could have simply added "hold person (nth-level version)" to the drow's spell list. This had previously been done with the innate spellcasters. That way the spell is more appropriately scaled AND the DM doesn't have to futz about with the PHB or whatever other manual where the spell resides to determine an appropriate level to upcast. I do that frequently in my own blocks, though the devs woefully under-use it. See the new spell block for the ki-rin for a proper example. The Vecna example makes this more clear. They could have given him dispel magic at a higher level. On the other hand, it must make the paladin feel pretty powerful to resist the dispel attempt of an archlich!
This can of worms has been discussed at length, and it's not really a problem. It finally allows spellcasting monsters to justify their challenge rating. Previously, a player with those two spells could completely lock down a spellcaster, which is no fun at all.
This is a relevant discussion for participant though! What I will say overall, is that I'd find your case stronger in a world where the devs designed encounters with a format that goes into detail about monster tactics (see the 4e encounter design). In that world, options galore wouldn't be an issue because the DM could default to official guidance.
(Hey, Sposta, I think you accidentally put “Megablade” instead of “Mageblade” as the name of my entry. Just wanted to let you know.)
Join the Competition of the Finest 'Brews XIX! (Or just spectate and vote, that's cool too. Either way, go there. It's awesome, and it'll be even more awesome if you join.)
Good lookin’ out. I fixed it. Thanks again.
Creating Epic Boons on DDB
DDB Buyers' Guide
Hardcovers, DDB & You
Content Troubleshooting
Thanks.
Join the Competition of the Finest 'Brews XIX! (Or just spectate and vote, that's cool too. Either way, go there. It's awesome, and it'll be even more awesome if you join.)
Question: Can I submit a group of monsters for the DM category? All fit within the category of primordial forces (it would be a total of 5 monster statblocks).
P.S. I'm very late to the party, so I think I'll only be able to craft one brew for the competition. Summer classes are very intense; should've listened when everyone said don't take 4 classes over the summer lol *sighs disappointedly*
Sunday DM and creator of homebrew for both DMs and players. I do lots of conversions!
My best brews: Berserker (Fire Emblem - barbarian subclass) | Swordmaster (Fire Emblem - fighter subclass) | Deserter (background) | Flame Atronach (Skyrim - monster)
My Fire Emblem Conversion Thread
General homebrew links
Spells | Monsters | Magic Items | Backgrounds | Feats | Races | Subclasses
I'm curious, what are the monsters?
I'm teaching this summer, it is a frantic experience. Good luck.
They are a series of elementals, all CR 5 to be used as more specific types of elements and can be conjured with conjure elemental.
The types are: Blizzard, Lightning, Magma, Mud, and Sandstorm elementals.
Largely inspired by the pathfinder ruleset's same-named monsters, but statblocks were designed to be similar in power and function to the existing core elemental types in 5e.
Sunday DM and creator of homebrew for both DMs and players. I do lots of conversions!
My best brews: Berserker (Fire Emblem - barbarian subclass) | Swordmaster (Fire Emblem - fighter subclass) | Deserter (background) | Flame Atronach (Skyrim - monster)
My Fire Emblem Conversion Thread
General homebrew links
Spells | Monsters | Magic Items | Backgrounds | Feats | Races | Subclasses
Do magical shields rust? If the answer is yes, then I should probably add something to the Volcano Shield saying that it cant.
BoringBard's long and tedious posts somehow manage to enrapture audiences. How? Because he used Charm Person, the #1 bard spell!
He/him pronouns. Call me Bard. PROUD NERD!
Ever wanted to talk about your parties' worst mistakes? Do so HERE. What's your favorite class, why? Share & explain
HERE.I dont think so, although I dont usually play with mechanics for breaking/deteriorating equipment so idk
Three-time Judge of the Competition of the Finest Brews! Come join us in making fun, unique homebrew and voting for your favorite entries!
What I found about magic items in the DMG Pg. 141
"Magic Item Resilience
Most magic items are objects of extraordinary artisanship. Thanks to a combination of careful crafting and magical reinforcement, a magic item is at least as durable as a nonmagical item of its kind. Most magic items, other than potions and scrolls, have resistance to all damage. Artifacts are practically indestructible, requiring extraordinary measures to destroy."
This suggests that magical shields would not rust under normal conditions by default, as the shield would likely be resistant to acid damage.
Further accentuating this, and more importantly, proving that the shield would be immune to rusting (excluding specific mention of corroding magic items), is the rust monster statblock. It states:
"Rust Metal. Any nonmagical weapon made of metal that hits the rust monster corrodes..."
So no, by default, magical shields (or likely any metallic magic item) will not rust.
Hope this helps!
Sunday DM and creator of homebrew for both DMs and players. I do lots of conversions!
My best brews: Berserker (Fire Emblem - barbarian subclass) | Swordmaster (Fire Emblem - fighter subclass) | Deserter (background) | Flame Atronach (Skyrim - monster)
My Fire Emblem Conversion Thread
General homebrew links
Spells | Monsters | Magic Items | Backgrounds | Feats | Races | Subclasses
Reminds me of the para-elementals and quasi-elementals of yore. The para-elemental planes were magma (fire and earth), ooze (earth and water), ice (water and air), and smoke (fire and air). I like the quasi-elemental planes, which mixed one element with either positive or negative energy. For the positive planes you had lightning (air), mineral (earth), radiance (fire), and steam (water) and for the negative you had vacuum (air), dust (earth), ash (fire), and salt (water).
That's pretty much how they I designed them! The mud elemental has qualities that are somewhere between earth and water elementals, blizzard is water and air, magma is earth and fire, sandstorm is earth and air, and lightning is fire and air. Only one I didn't do was steam (fire and water) but I guess I could still do that!
Sunday DM and creator of homebrew for both DMs and players. I do lots of conversions!
My best brews: Berserker (Fire Emblem - barbarian subclass) | Swordmaster (Fire Emblem - fighter subclass) | Deserter (background) | Flame Atronach (Skyrim - monster)
My Fire Emblem Conversion Thread
General homebrew links
Spells | Monsters | Magic Items | Backgrounds | Feats | Races | Subclasses
Make a vacuum elemental! It deals extra psychic damage to dogs.
I envision a vacuum elemental being a large transparent blob that engulfs creatures into its empty interior. Kinda like a gelatinous cube, but the creature takes cold damage instead of acid. Maybe its also immune to thunder damage, idk. When it dies, the vacuum collapses and all nearby creatures and objects are violently pulled inwards towards the space it used to occupy. The potential for something neat is definitely there.
Three-time Judge of the Competition of the Finest Brews! Come join us in making fun, unique homebrew and voting for your favorite entries!
If I were to make a vacuum elemental, I think I'd give it an attack that suffocates creatures within 5-feet of it. Something like that would likely be higher than CR 5 though since it could effectively one-shot a raging barbarian of any level. Also I would probably try to include that in a cosmic theme, rather than a primordial theme.
On a side note, I still don't know if I can use the list of elementals I posted before for this category lol
Sunday DM and creator of homebrew for both DMs and players. I do lots of conversions!
My best brews: Berserker (Fire Emblem - barbarian subclass) | Swordmaster (Fire Emblem - fighter subclass) | Deserter (background) | Flame Atronach (Skyrim - monster)
My Fire Emblem Conversion Thread
General homebrew links
Spells | Monsters | Magic Items | Backgrounds | Feats | Races | Subclasses
Yep, an aura of suffocation and silence. Immune to thunder damage, attacks with force damage that pulls. I'd call vacuums pretty primordial in the truest sense of the word! This actually gives me a neat idea for a creation-of-life elemental based on the Miller-Urey experiments. It would be a chaotic blob of heated steam that occasionally sparks with lightning and spits out oozes.
I'd be cool with it, but it should probably be Sposta's call.
Ok, and thanks for the info:) I guess I won't add that to the Volcano Shield then.
BoringBard's long and tedious posts somehow manage to enrapture audiences. How? Because he used Charm Person, the #1 bard spell!
He/him pronouns. Call me Bard. PROUD NERD!
Ever wanted to talk about your parties' worst mistakes? Do so HERE. What's your favorite class, why? Share & explain
HERE.I had previously “thanked” the post where the question was initially asked as a form of approval. I see no reason to not allow it.
Creating Epic Boons on DDB
DDB Buyers' Guide
Hardcovers, DDB & You
Content Troubleshooting
Ahh, I didn't notice that! I'll get to work adding them to DDB tonight. They should be posted tonight, but it could take until tomorrow.
Sunday DM and creator of homebrew for both DMs and players. I do lots of conversions!
My best brews: Berserker (Fire Emblem - barbarian subclass) | Swordmaster (Fire Emblem - fighter subclass) | Deserter (background) | Flame Atronach (Skyrim - monster)
My Fire Emblem Conversion Thread
General homebrew links
Spells | Monsters | Magic Items | Backgrounds | Feats | Races | Subclasses