Dragonlance Dragonlance Reflected in D&D5

[gribble]

In general, D&D5 does not support sacrifices of any kind as a part of character generation. I would be wary of any modification that introduces them.

Sure it does - everytime you're making a choice in character creation you're sacrificing something! Choose fighter as a class? You're sacrificing your ability to cast spells. I can see how *taking away something already granted* might be a problem - hence my comment about it not really working as an alternate specialisation, but making sacrifices is kind of the natural outcome of making choices.

That being said, it sounds like your approach is to just use the standard wizard class and specialisations, with added "roleplaying" to simulate the various orders. That sounds like a equally good approach to me, if that's what will work best for you and your players. It's probably not the approach I'd take, as I kind of like the additional choices something like what I outlined provides, and I like how it more strongly ties the mechanics of the game to the background, but I also realise that other folks like different things from me.

 

[gribble]

I can certainly see the reservations about the feat choice. Unfortunately, I couldn't see any other way to provide the feel of the KoS through classes.

Knight of the Crown - Fighter subclass
Knight of the Sword - Cleric subclass
Knight of the Rose - Paladin subclass

Then characters can switch between the three using standard multiclassing.

 

[DMZ2112]

I like how it more strongly ties the mechanics of the game to the background

Generally speaking I am also a big fan of crunch-as-fluff. I just think introducing racial and class drawbacks to D&D5 would be in conflict with the spirit of the edition and would require a lot more rebalancing than you are allowing for, besides.

 

[gribble]

Generally speaking I am also a big fan of crunch-as-fluff. I just think introducing racial and class drawbacks to D&D5 would be in conflict with the spirit of the edition and would require a lot more rebalancing than you are allowing for, besides.

How, mechanically, is a wizard who chooses (for "roleplaying" reasons) to never learn/prepare any necromancy spells any different from one who is prevented from doing so by the rules? If the former is balanced for 5e, then by necessity the latter is as well, isn't it?

I don't think the balance argument holds any water, though I can understand if you think it's somehow against the spirit of 5e - we'll just have to disagree on that one.

Of course, you could always present it as an addition to the wizard class - "at 3rd level, a wizard who only knows spells from ... schools can choose to become a ... robed wizard of high sorcery. Otherwise they are considered renegade". Then it's not taking anything away at all (and you could even attach benefits to it). If tracking individual spells is too cumbersome, you could even attach it to the choice of specialist school?

 

[Raunalyn]

Knight of the Crown - Fighter subclass
Knight of the Sword - Cleric subclass
Knight of the Rose - Paladin subclass

Then characters can switch between the three using standard multiclassing.

Yes, you could go that way...but then you'd have a similar problem with feats (since those are determined by class level as opposed to character level).

 

[DMZ2112]

Yes, you could go that way...but then you'd have a similar problem with feats (since those are determined by class level as opposed to character level).

Thank you for that, Raunalyn, that is the first time I've noticed! Looks like I'll be upping the level requirements on my multiclassing system to 4th rather than 3rd, so they don't lose those ability score increases or feats.

 

[Astromath]

Here's my take on the WoHS faction:

Instead of denying the wizards certain schools due to their choice of robes, simply deny them taking the "banned" schools for their Arcane Tradition. Also, since the Wizard selects their first Tradition before they take the Test, have them take the first Tradition the school only which their future choice of robe allows. Of course, they could take a Tradition that is common to all robes if they wish as their first Tradition. This gives the Wizard flexibility to join any robe. Now, all this is moot if they choose to be a renegade.

 

[Farland]

Sorry if someone has already said this, but I think in terms of handler, if you take sneak attack away from rogue you make them too weak.

 

[DMZ2112]

Here's my take on the WoHS faction:

Instead of denying the wizards certain schools due to their choice of robes, simply deny them taking the "banned" schools for their Arcane Tradition. Also, since the Wizard selects their first Tradition before they take the Test, have them take the first Tradition the school only which their future choice of robe allows. Of course, they could take a Tradition that is common to all robes if they wish as their first Tradition. This gives the Wizard flexibility to join any robe. Now, all this is moot if they choose to be a renegade.

I'm still not really comfortable about telling players, "You can specialize in this kind of magic or be this alignment, but not both." The elephant in the room here is evocation. There are no white robed war wizards? That poses all kinds of questions.

But your theory is sound. If it had to be done, this is how I would do it.

Sorry if someone has already said this, but I think in terms of handler, if you take sneak attack away from rogue you make them too weak.

Oh, it makes the Rogue substantially less effective as a damage dealer, and no mistake. But if I wanted to play a dungeoneer in a large party that already had the combat roles filled in, I'd pick this Handler over the Thief any day of the week, sneak attack or no. It's not intended to be a combat archetype.

 

[SirAntoine]

I'd suggest using dragonborn, keeping minotaurs a separate race, and making new classes for the knights.