since the conversation has devloved into 2e, i really think it is weird how little of the rules the books mention are actiually IN the books, for instance customized class creation is really vague about how many spell slots i have, the rouge has proficiency in lassos and rope proficiency mentions lassos, something that only exists in the complete fighters handbook, the books claim that the table detailing the uses for intelegence has an section that shows bonus proficiency slots for having high intelegence (it does not), also verry interesting how it recommends you to go to the library, presumably since the internet was not a thing yet, there were a bunch of weird niche 1st level spells with super specific uses like guessing aproximately how many objects exists in a group or affecting normal fires
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
i am soup, with too many ideas (all of them very spicy) who has made sufficient homebrew material and character to last an thousand human lifetimes
Dude! besides the orc, no other races in 5e have penalties in their race stat block. they are already small, why do they need the strength penalty? Sunlight Sensitivity makes sense, not arguing that. But the penalty to strength is just... pointless. Why do that to Kobolds?
To balance out Pack Tactics, which could be ridiculous with a stronger stat block...
I personally love my Kobold Strength Fighter with 2h Heavy Maul, simply because Pack Tactics cancels out all that disadvantage :-)
i think you are foretting that while it comes with several disadvantages, small size also comes with some advantages, most notably the abillity to ride on medium creatures, an feature much apreciated by beast master rangers who get that flying dinosaur with 60 ft fly speed as their companion or if they want to be swallowed by their own giant toad
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
i am soup, with too many ideas (all of them very spicy) who has made sufficient homebrew material and character to last an thousand human lifetimes
since the conversation has devloved into 2e, i really think it is weird how little of the rules the books mention are actiually IN the books, for instance customized class creation is really vague about how many spell slots i have, the rouge has proficiency in lassos and rope proficiency mentions lassos, something that only exists in the complete fighters handbook, the books claim that the table detailing the uses for intelegence has an section that shows bonus proficiency slots for having high intelegence (it does not), also verry interesting how it recommends you to go to the library, presumably since the internet was not a thing yet, there were a bunch of weird niche 1st level spells with super specific uses like guessing aproximately how many objects exists in a group or affecting normal fires
LOL, 2nd edition was a cluster f#*k of a rule set. The learning curve was insanely prohibitive to attracting new players. I loved the game then as much as I do now, but the rules of 5e are by and large much better.
and yes it was interesting but also stuipd how bards were technically just secret wizards
Bards used to be the Arcane Trickster of 2e. Originally there were only two kinds of spellcaster, “Arcane” and “Divine” Arcane used Int, Divine used Wis. Bards were Arcane Casters.
since the conversation has devloved into 2e, i really think it is weird how little of the rules the books mention are actiually IN the books, for instance customized class creation is really vague about how many spell slots i have, the rouge has proficiency in lassos and rope proficiency mentions lassos, something that only exists in the complete fighters handbook, the books claim that the table detailing the uses for intelegence has an section that shows bonus proficiency slots for having high intelegence (it does not), also verry interesting how it recommends you to go to the library, presumably since the internet was not a thing yet, there were a bunch of weird niche 1st level spells with super specific uses like guessing aproximately how many objects exists in a group or affecting normal fires
LOL, 2nd edition was a cluster f#*k of a rule set. The learning curve was insanely prohibitive to attracting new players. I loved the game then as much as I do now, but the rules of 5e are by and large much better.
like seriously, lets say i create an custom class all about trickery, 0 level commoner attack progression becuase he is not one for combat, wizard saving throw progression, 1d6 hit points an +1 hit points above level 9, no armor proficiency because that will just hinder him, and i choose to give my little custom class acess to the rouge skills hide in shadow and move silently, as well as acess to one school of spells, in this case illusion. How many spells are in my characters spell book? is it the same as bards or the same as wizards? what spell progression do i use? players option: spells and magic seems to suggest that custom class character have weaker spell progression than "true" wizards, but nowhere is this made completely clear how exactly that spell progression is supposed to look like, so in lack of other options it is simply assumed that the player gets acess to the full scope of wizard spells, and in that case well we got ourselves an character who is about as strong as a wizard, a bit less versatile and one who levels up at an rate several times faster than the wizard, if they get the same amount of experience they should progress at an rate much faster than the wizard
Lets say i want to be an enchantment specialist, i make the same desicions but i dont pick rouge skills and i add the charm domain to the caster, and my school is enchantment this time, will i have both cleric and wizard spell slots, and progress faster in EXP than ether of those classes, now able to seduce his way across the continent?
the books make a lot of warnings against "super characters" who do everything, not against minimalist characters who do just a few things
and yes it was interesting but also stuipd how bards were technically just secret wizards
Bards used to be the Arcane Trickster of 2e. Originally there were only two kinds of spellcaster, “Arcane” and “Divine” Arcane used Int, Divine used Wis. Bards were Arcane Casters.
yeah it only had like four classes, wizard, priest, rouge and warrior, and from there every single class is simply an variation of those four base classes. Later players option: spells and magic would imply that the bard somehow casts spells diffrently, but no if you are magic you are magic from study and smarts. Also is it even fait to say wizards used to cast with intelegence? the spells themselves did not get harder to avoid by the wizard being more smart, they do not get more accurate, you dont get more of em' spell slots than any other wizard, from an 9 int wizard to an 18 int wizard there is no diffrence in how effective they are as spellcaster, the only difference is how likely it is for them both to learn a new spell and how many spells their spellbook can possibly store despite that litterally making no sense like what the **** just add more damm pages to the book it is not hard?!
as for how i have acess to these books despite not being born in the right time and these books probably being hard to come by *sweats nervously* i find that to be an very awkward question....
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
i am soup, with too many ideas (all of them very spicy) who has made sufficient homebrew material and character to last an thousand human lifetimes
Intelligence determined the highest spell level a wizard (arcane caster) could cast and the difficultly of learning new spells. There was also the optional rule of intelligence restricting the number of spells the wizard can know of each level.
Wisdom affected whether or not a cleric's spells would fail (yes just out right not work) as well as provided extra spell slots if they had a higher score.
Everything that a Stat affected was listed with the stat itself, not the class.
The original 2e classes were Fighter, Paladin*, Ranger*, Mage, Cleric, Druid*, Thief and Bard*
*were optional along with specialist Mages (Illusionist etc.)
Before AD&D, races and classes were the same thing. If I remember corectly, the original “classes” were Fighter, Arcane Caster, Elf and Dwarf. Thief, "divine caster”, and Halfling all came later after they twister Gary’s arm about it because he loved Conan but hater LotR.
Intelligence determined the highest spell level a wizard (arcane caster) could cast and the difficultly of learning new spells. There was also the optional rule of intelligence restricting the number of spells the wizard can know of each level.
Wisdom affected whether or not a cleric's spells would fail (yes just out right not work) as well as provided extra spell slots if they had a higher score.
Everything that a Stat affected was listed with the stat itself, not the class.
The original 2e classes were Fighter, Paladin*, Ranger*, Mage, Cleric, Druid*, Thief and Bard*
*were optional along with specialist Mages (Illusionist etc.)
you do realize i have read the second edition PHB, with the eyes. that i have.
The Player's Option series came at the tale end of 2nd edition and was even more of a dumpster fire than the original core rules.
while players option sounds really interesting and probably the only kin of game i, an 5e player would be interested in, i will trust your asseesment in that it was a dumpster fire, but was it a fun kind of dumpster fire or an not fun kind of dumpster fire?
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
i am soup, with too many ideas (all of them very spicy) who has made sufficient homebrew material and character to last an thousand human lifetimes
Intelligence determined the highest spell level a wizard (arcane caster) could cast and the difficultly of learning new spells. There was also the optional rule of intelligence restricting the number of spells the wizard can know of each level.
Wisdom affected whether or not a cleric's spells would fail (yes just out right not work) as well as provided extra spell slots if they had a higher score.
Everything that a Stat affected was listed with the stat itself, not the class.
The original 2e classes were Fighter, Paladin*, Ranger*, Mage, Cleric, Druid*, Thief and Bard*
*were optional along with specialist Mages (Illusionist etc.)
you do realize i have read the second edition PHB, with the eyes. that i have.
The Player's Option series came at the tale end of 2nd edition and was even more of a dumpster fire than the original core rules.
while players option sounds really interesting and probably the only kin of game i, an 5e player would be interested in, i will trust your asseesment in that it was a dumpster fire, but was it a fun kind of dumpster fire or an not fun kind of dumpster fire?
Sorry, I may have miss read something previously posted.
As for the Player's Option being fun, I would say yes, but it was a bit more difficult to make work. With a lot of experience came a better understand of how to balance things to make a fun and unique character that was also worked well with other fun and unique characters.
2nd edition was a much more dangerous game, with lots of save or die spells, traps and such along with creatures that could just out right kill most characters. This meant the party composition was very important. You needed that Cleric to heal and the Wizard to cast devastating spells and a heavily armored Fighter or two to maintain the front line. A bunch of squishy character would die very quickly.
I think the idea was a good one, but not well implemented. Then 3rd/3.5 came along and offered customization with an better learning curve.
Intelligence determined the highest spell level a wizard (arcane caster) could cast and the difficultly of learning new spells. There was also the optional rule of intelligence restricting the number of spells the wizard can know of each level.
Wisdom affected whether or not a cleric's spells would fail (yes just out right not work) as well as provided extra spell slots if they had a higher score.
Everything that a Stat affected was listed with the stat itself, not the class.
The original 2e classes were Fighter, Paladin*, Ranger*, Mage, Cleric, Druid*, Thief and Bard*
*were optional along with specialist Mages (Illusionist etc.)
you do realize i have read the second edition PHB, with the eyes. that i have.
The Player's Option series came at the tale end of 2nd edition and was even more of a dumpster fire than the original core rules.
while players option sounds really interesting and probably the only kin of game i, an 5e player would be interested in, i will trust your asseesment in that it was a dumpster fire, but was it a fun kind of dumpster fire or an not fun kind of dumpster fire?
Sorry, I may have miss read something previously posted.
As for the Player's Option being fun, I would say yes, but it was a bit more difficult to make work. With a lot of experience came a better understand of how to balance things to make a fun and unique character that was also worked well with other fun and unique characters.
2nd edition was a much more dangerous game, with lots of save or die spells, traps and such along with creatures that could just out right kill most characters. This meant the party composition was very important. You needed that Cleric to heal and the Wizard to cast devastating spells and a heavily armored Fighter or two to maintain the front line. A bunch of squishy character would die very quickly.
I think the idea was a good one, but not well implemented. Then 3rd/3.5 came along and offered customization with an better learning curve.
I ran 2nd edition and didn't have any real bad issues until the option books were released, I had rules lawyer player and he argued that it said players option so it was up to him if he used it. So I told him NO it doesn't mean that I allowed a few options but the player asked for them and lost something in exchange and I did not use the knock down rolls and stuff like that. I hate options that make combat longer.
I can't claim to know what is coming next, but I would like to see an update on Variant Class Options. I find that for more exciting than just more Subclasses to be honest.
I can't claim to know what is coming next, but I would like to see an update on Variant Class Options. I find that for more exciting than just more Subclasses to be honest.
I agree. I do want more subclasses, they're probably going to make at least 12 more, but I think they'll take a small break from subclasses, and make a Class Feature Variants 2.0, or new race options before they resume subclasses (at least after they do Subclasses Part 4).
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Please check out my homebrew, I would appreciate feedback:
I wonder if the Coronavirus is helping or hindering the process. After all, Washington is pretty much shutdown now so they have plenty of time to create while they are at home. I would guess that they would need to be in the office to publish the UA's but maybe not.
since the conversation has devloved into 2e, i really think it is weird how little of the rules the books mention are actiually IN the books, for instance customized class creation is really vague about how many spell slots i have, the rouge has proficiency in lassos and rope proficiency mentions lassos, something that only exists in the complete fighters handbook, the books claim that the table detailing the uses for intelegence has an section that shows bonus proficiency slots for having high intelegence (it does not), also verry interesting how it recommends you to go to the library, presumably since the internet was not a thing yet, there were a bunch of weird niche 1st level spells with super specific uses like guessing aproximately how many objects exists in a group or affecting normal fires
i am soup, with too many ideas (all of them very spicy) who has made sufficient homebrew material and character to last an thousand human lifetimes
i think you are foretting that while it comes with several disadvantages, small size also comes with some advantages, most notably the abillity to ride on medium creatures, an feature much apreciated by beast master rangers who get that flying dinosaur with 60 ft fly speed as their companion or if they want to be swallowed by their own giant toad
i am soup, with too many ideas (all of them very spicy) who has made sufficient homebrew material and character to last an thousand human lifetimes
LOL, 2nd edition was a cluster f#*k of a rule set. The learning curve was insanely prohibitive to attracting new players. I loved the game then as much as I do now, but the rules of 5e are by and large much better.
She/Her Player and Dungeon Master
Bards used to be the Arcane Trickster of 2e. Originally there were only two kinds of spellcaster, “Arcane” and “Divine” Arcane used Int, Divine used Wis. Bards were Arcane Casters.
Creating Epic Boons on DDB
DDB Buyers' Guide
Hardcovers, DDB & You
Content Troubleshooting
The rules for bonus proficiencies were in there, I remember that. And there were no cantrips back then, “Cantrip” was a 1st level spell.
Creating Epic Boons on DDB
DDB Buyers' Guide
Hardcovers, DDB & You
Content Troubleshooting
like seriously, lets say i create an custom class all about trickery, 0 level commoner attack progression becuase he is not one for combat, wizard saving throw progression, 1d6 hit points an +1 hit points above level 9, no armor proficiency because that will just hinder him, and i choose to give my little custom class acess to the rouge skills hide in shadow and move silently, as well as acess to one school of spells, in this case illusion. How many spells are in my characters spell book? is it the same as bards or the same as wizards? what spell progression do i use? players option: spells and magic seems to suggest that custom class character have weaker spell progression than "true" wizards, but nowhere is this made completely clear how exactly that spell progression is supposed to look like, so in lack of other options it is simply assumed that the player gets acess to the full scope of wizard spells, and in that case well we got ourselves an character who is about as strong as a wizard, a bit less versatile and one who levels up at an rate several times faster than the wizard, if they get the same amount of experience they should progress at an rate much faster than the wizard
Lets say i want to be an enchantment specialist, i make the same desicions but i dont pick rouge skills and i add the charm domain to the caster, and my school is enchantment this time, will i have both cleric and wizard spell slots, and progress faster in EXP than ether of those classes, now able to seduce his way across the continent?
the books make a lot of warnings against "super characters" who do everything, not against minimalist characters who do just a few things
yeah it only had like four classes, wizard, priest, rouge and warrior, and from there every single class is simply an variation of those four base classes. Later players option: spells and magic would imply that the bard somehow casts spells diffrently, but no if you are magic you are magic from study and smarts. Also is it even fait to say wizards used to cast with intelegence? the spells themselves did not get harder to avoid by the wizard being more smart, they do not get more accurate, you dont get more of em' spell slots than any other wizard, from an 9 int wizard to an 18 int wizard there is no diffrence in how effective they are as spellcaster, the only difference is how likely it is for them both to learn a new spell and how many spells their spellbook can possibly store despite that litterally making no sense like what the **** just add more damm pages to the book it is not hard?!
as for how i have acess to these books despite not being born in the right time and these books probably being hard to come by *sweats nervously* i find that to be an very awkward question....
i am soup, with too many ideas (all of them very spicy) who has made sufficient homebrew material and character to last an thousand human lifetimes
Intelligence determined the highest spell level a wizard (arcane caster) could cast and the difficultly of learning new spells. There was also the optional rule of intelligence restricting the number of spells the wizard can know of each level.
Wisdom affected whether or not a cleric's spells would fail (yes just out right not work) as well as provided extra spell slots if they had a higher score.
Everything that a Stat affected was listed with the stat itself, not the class.
The original 2e classes were Fighter, Paladin*, Ranger*, Mage, Cleric, Druid*, Thief and Bard*
*were optional along with specialist Mages (Illusionist etc.)
She/Her Player and Dungeon Master
The Player's Option series came at the tale end of 2nd edition and was even more of a dumpster fire than the original core rules.
She/Her Player and Dungeon Master
Before AD&D, races and classes were the same thing. If I remember corectly, the original “classes” were Fighter, Arcane Caster, Elf and Dwarf. Thief, "divine caster”, and Halfling all came later after they twister Gary’s arm about it because he loved Conan but hater LotR.
Creating Epic Boons on DDB
DDB Buyers' Guide
Hardcovers, DDB & You
Content Troubleshooting
you do realize i have read the second edition PHB, with the eyes. that i have.
while players option sounds really interesting and probably the only kin of game i, an 5e player would be interested in, i will trust your asseesment in that it was a dumpster fire, but was it a fun kind of dumpster fire or an not fun kind of dumpster fire?
i am soup, with too many ideas (all of them very spicy) who has made sufficient homebrew material and character to last an thousand human lifetimes
Sorry, I may have miss read something previously posted.
As for the Player's Option being fun, I would say yes, but it was a bit more difficult to make work. With a lot of experience came a better understand of how to balance things to make a fun and unique character that was also worked well with other fun and unique characters.
2nd edition was a much more dangerous game, with lots of save or die spells, traps and such along with creatures that could just out right kill most characters. This meant the party composition was very important. You needed that Cleric to heal and the Wizard to cast devastating spells and a heavily armored Fighter or two to maintain the front line. A bunch of squishy character would die very quickly.
I think the idea was a good one, but not well implemented. Then 3rd/3.5 came along and offered customization with an better learning curve.
She/Her Player and Dungeon Master
AllA lot of that Player’s Options stuff eventually went into the design for 3/3.5e.Creating Epic Boons on DDB
DDB Buyers' Guide
Hardcovers, DDB & You
Content Troubleshooting
I ran 2nd edition and didn't have any real bad issues until the option books were released, I had rules lawyer player and he argued that it said players option so it was up to him if he used it. So I told him NO it doesn't mean that I allowed a few options but the player asked for them and lost something in exchange and I did not use the knock down rolls and stuff like that. I hate options that make combat longer.
Clicks on thread waiting too see other's ideas for new subclasses/races, so on.
Reads thread.
"What thread am I on again?"
Please check out my homebrew, I would appreciate feedback:
Spells, Monsters, Subclasses, Races, Arcknight Class, Occultist Class, World, Enigmatic Esoterica forms
Sorry :(
She/Her Player and Dungeon Master
No problem. Just amusing. That's literally what happened to me.
So, what were we talking about before it turned into a conversation on 2e?
Please check out my homebrew, I would appreciate feedback:
Spells, Monsters, Subclasses, Races, Arcknight Class, Occultist Class, World, Enigmatic Esoterica forms
I can't claim to know what is coming next, but I would like to see an update on Variant Class Options. I find that for more exciting than just more Subclasses to be honest.
She/Her Player and Dungeon Master
I agree. I do want more subclasses, they're probably going to make at least 12 more, but I think they'll take a small break from subclasses, and make a Class Feature Variants 2.0, or new race options before they resume subclasses (at least after they do Subclasses Part 4).
Please check out my homebrew, I would appreciate feedback:
Spells, Monsters, Subclasses, Races, Arcknight Class, Occultist Class, World, Enigmatic Esoterica forms
I wonder if the Coronavirus is helping or hindering the process. After all, Washington is pretty much shutdown now so they have plenty of time to create while they are at home. I would guess that they would need to be in the office to publish the UA's but maybe not.
She/Her Player and Dungeon Master
They probably have computers at home, so they can still email each other, and create UA pdfs, and stuff. I don't think it will affect them too much.
Please check out my homebrew, I would appreciate feedback:
Spells, Monsters, Subclasses, Races, Arcknight Class, Occultist Class, World, Enigmatic Esoterica forms