Monstrous Compendium Vol. 1: Spelljammer Creatures
Frozen Sick
D&D Beyond Basic Rules
Basic Rules (2014)
Sign in to view your library & saved favorites.
Sign in- Marketplace
Monstrous Compendium Vol. 1: Spelljammer CreaturesFrozen SickD&D Beyond Basic RulesBasic Rules (2014)Sign in to view your library & saved favorites.
Sign in
[featname]
Pre-req level 12+
effect:
Whenever you Transform using a class or subclass feature, and have one or more class or subclass Transformation abilities, you may combine two of those Transformations into a single activation as long as they share the same activation time. Abilities granted by those Transformations function with the combined Transformation. You choose one of the Transformation charges to use of the two when doing so, instead of both being used up.
If the two Transformations have different durations, use the longer duration of the two.
Example: Combining barbarian Path of the Beast rage/transformation; and druid Starry Form (Star druid,) as a Single Bonus Action, using either the Barbarian's Rage OR the Druids Wild Shape charge/usage - instead of using both up.
I'll start with the obvious wording issue: "Transformation" is not a defined rules term. I'm not really sure how to word this ability without using a term like that, though.
For balance, I think the main issue is oddities from contradicting features and weird/overpowered stacking. I feel like this feat would probably work great in some cases and really horribly in others.
Using the longer duration technically could mean that a druid/barbarian can rage for an hour without attacking or dealing damage, using only one of the resources means you are getting double value for your resources, and roughly double as many resources. It would encourage players to find weak features with lots of usage to combine with higher-power single-use features e.g. A shifter Paladin who activates their ult and shift using only their shift resources.
Noted.
Changed to Class/Subclass Transformation feature.
Yea, there's no global "transformation" term. So I just made it one. Since a lot of those abilities already use the "Transform", "Transforming", or "Transformation" . It is also separate from abilities like Bladesong, or most barbarian's Rage. Beast Barbarian and Giant Barbarian being two examples of subclasses that explicitly use the Transform/Transformation/Transforming wording. Along with some Paladin capstones like Oath of the Ancient's Elder Champion and Vengeance's Avenging Angle.
You didn't make it one, you just used the word Transform. If you want to use a keyword in a piece of content, you have to clearly define what it is.
Transform - keyword
"An ability or spell that causes something to Transform, undergo a Transformation, or be subject to a Transforming effect."
Your keyword uses itself to define itself. You're still not at a usable definition.
If I wanted to define Transformation features, I'd say something like this:
An Enhancement is an effect that does not come from a spell that gives you new abilities or enhances existing abilities, and lasts for a limited duration, such as a Barbarian's Rage, a Druid's Wild Shape, or a Monk's Superior Defense.
I figure the name Enhancement is more representative of things like Rage and a Paladin's capstone ability. Obviously, this isn't remotely close to resembling an official wording, but I think it gets the point across.
well, i DONT want it to be compatible with basic Rage, or most paladin capstone abilities, or most other things that don't physically transform the character.
and Transform, Transforming, and Transformed are all currently used words in D&D, and have been for a long time. I frankly, don't get your gripe with trying to redefine the word, when it has a known definition. https://www.dictionary.com/browse/transform?q=Transform
This isn't "Enhancements"; this is Transform/ation/ing/ed
In 5.5e Shape-Shifting is defined in the glossary. It won't encompass everything you want the ability to do, but it is clearly specified.
Any sufficiently widespread magic is indistinguishable from technology.
The second funniest thing to make a D&D party do is explain morality
Try your hand at the Ultimate Skill Build Challenge!
I probably nitpick and scrutinize too much
Good point about the rage and paladin thing. I saw those mentioned in a comment and decided to include those.
Just because spells and features use a word doesn't mean it's a keyword. Plain English definitions are also not very useful for keywords. Flaming Sphere says that the sphere is spongy, at least in 3.5e, but that doesn't mean "Spongy" has mechanics associated with it.
For a more concrete example, imagine the word "Concentration" was not mechanically defined as a keyword with rules associated with it. If I wrote a spell and said in its description: "the spell ends if you lose Concentration on it" would you know what I meant?
I would like to add that I do understand what this feat is trying to do, and most people would probably understand its intent, but the wording is not sufficient for a proper homebrew rule. Also, by a strict reading of Transform as a keyword, Wild Shape is not a Transformation. This is why keywords must either not be used, as in my wording, or have defined definitions.
I see shape-shifting as a sub-set of Transforming, or the other way around? A character can transform part of their body (such as Barbarian Beast's natural weapons,) or they can shape-shift into an entirely new creature. I will note, that per whatsray's comment, that an example in the Shape-Shifting glossary description - it lists Polymorph. And Polymorph says "You attempt to transform," so the terminology is already there and understood. It's just not 'officially' in the 5e/5.5e Glossary.
Maybe Shape-Shift works well enough, but I think it's a little clunky to use that term when describing a transformation that isn't fully transforming a character/creature into an entirely new form. Now, there is a further issue with this idea that I stumbled upon. Wording changes from 5e to 5.5e, with the example being Avenging Angel capstone for Oath of Vengeance paladins. In 5e, it says "you undergo a transformation" and in 5.5e it loses that wording. There are several examples similar to that in other 5e->5.5e updates.
Which creates a really awkward DM Fiat situation per 'transformation'-esque abilities.
Shape-shifting I guess technically fits, and perhaps I'm just stuck on the "transform/ation/ed/ing" wording since I envisioned this for use with Predator Warlock and Beast Barb, both of which have specifically mentioned Transform features.
Also, regarding Wild Shape, 5e has "While you are transformed." in the Wild Shape description. For 5.5e, "Transform" is mentioned in the class description at the top of the page "Transform into animals" as well as Circle of the Moon "Transform themselves" - but the Wild Shape feature itself no longer has the word. Replacing it with "assume the form" and the Shape-Shift keyword, which is absent in 5e.
Maybe just communicate with the player who this is for/the DM you are playing with on what the feat does and doesn't apply to. The rules don't have a good keyword, so publishing it is a bit of a naught exercise.
On that note, who is this effect for specifically? And are they (or your DM if its for you) cool with it?
Whomever wants it, to play around with dual-transformation character ideas.
Predatorlock/Beast Barb for example, is a lot more fun when you don't spend two turns burning bonus action to activate transformations and get the abilities to work together synergistically. A campaign I am in, the DM gave me a boon that is essentially this feat (with some other stuff tacked on.) So I'm trying to rework it to be more generally intuitive for use without any extra stuff tacked on.
Or Preadtorlock/Moon Druid; or Hollow Warden Ranger/something else...or whatever other combination (that isn't level 20 paladin capstone...)
Well maybe you could just take the exact same boon, strip everything that‘s not essential, and besides that only change minimal aspects. This way, the wording remains almost original (assuming the boon itself was not homebrew to begin with).
Though I don’t know the exact boon, so this might not work.