Menu
News
All News
Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
Pathfinder
Starfinder
Warhammer
2d20 System
Year Zero Engine
Industry News
Reviews
Dragon Reflections
Columns
Weekly Digests
Weekly News Digest
Freebies, Sales & Bundles
RPG Print News
RPG Crowdfunding News
Game Content
ENterplanetary DimENsions
Mythological Figures
Opinion
Worlds of Design
Peregrine's Next
RPG Evolution
Other Columns
From the Freelancing Frontline
Monster ENcyclopedia
WotC/TSR Alumni Look Back
4 Hours w/RSD (Ryan Dancey)
The Road to 3E (Jonathan Tweet)
Greenwood's Realms (Ed Greenwood)
Drawmij's TSR (Jim Ward)
Community
Forums & Topics
Forum List
Latest Posts
Forum list
*Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
D&D Older Editions
*TTRPGs General
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
EN Publishing
*Geek Talk & Media
Search forums
Chat/Discord
Resources
Wiki
Pages
Latest activity
Media
New media
New comments
Search media
Downloads
Latest reviews
Search resources
EN Publishing
Store
EN5ider
Adventures in ZEITGEIST
Awfully Cheerful Engine
What's OLD is NEW
Judge Dredd & The Worlds Of 2000AD
War of the Burning Sky
Level Up: Advanced 5E
Events & Releases
Upcoming Events
Private Events
Featured Events
Socials!
Twitch
YouTube
Facebook (EN Publishing)
Facebook (EN World)
Twitter
Instagram
TikTok
Podcast
Features
Top 5 RPGs Compiled Charts 2004-Present
Adventure Game Industry Market Research Summary (RPGs) V1.0
Ryan Dancey: Acquiring TSR
Q&A With Gary Gygax
D&D Rules FAQs
TSR, WotC, & Paizo: A Comparative History
D&D Pronunciation Guide
Million Dollar TTRPG Kickstarters
Tabletop RPG Podcast Hall of Fame
Eric Noah's Unofficial D&D 3rd Edition News
D&D in the Mainstream
D&D & RPG History
About Morrus
Log in
Register
What's new
Search
Search
Search titles only
By:
Forums & Topics
Forum List
Latest Posts
Forum list
*Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
D&D Older Editions
*TTRPGs General
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
EN Publishing
*Geek Talk & Media
Search forums
Chat/Discord
Menu
Log in
Register
Install the app
Install
The
VOIDRUNNER'S CODEX
is LIVE! Explore new worlds, fight oppressive empires, fend off fearsome aliens, and wield deadly psionics with this comprehensive boxed set expansion for 5E and A5E!
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*Dungeons & Dragons
War of the Burning Sky 5e Player's Guide Preview!
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="Matthan" data-source="post: 7307973" data-attributes="member: 20005"><p>I love WotBS and have been running it in 5e for a while now. I never bothered with a direct conversion of a lot the player material though so I’m really interested in what you’ve come up with. I’ve got the 3.5 and 4e versions pulled up too. My plan is to go through, compare, and offer my thoughts as they come. Hopefully, one or two will be helpful.</p><p></p><p>Page 1: I like the broader margins versus the 3.5 version. The 4E version has a lovely header that would look nice brought over. I prefer the two columns of this and the 3.5 version over the 4e. The footers and page numbers of the 4e version pop more as well. This is my first time really looking through the 4e version. I didn’t realize that they had shifted Shahalesti into an Eladrin nation. That might be an interesting idea to consider as you think through the conversion. Perhaps the Shahalesti are high elves and the remaining Taranesti are a different subrace (Wild perhaps or a new subrace with some connections to shadow)</p><p></p><p>Page 2: Again, the 4E version pops much better with its header and footer. It is also more visually distinct and useful with the gray sidebar that breaks down Gate Pass into quick game information. The 4e version also provides additional information not present in the 3.5 version. In your position, I would copy the 4e sidebar instead of the 3.5 stat block. I don’t recall seeing that kind of city statblock in 5e and the 4e one conveys a lot more information. </p><p></p><p>The 4e version has a nice introductory paragraph that helps to give a sense for how common the knowledge included is. That’s something worth copying. </p><p></p><p>Your first paragraph under ‘Traditions and Culture’ is missing an indent.</p><p></p><p>The 4e version contains a section on race relations regarding Orcs, Half-Orcs, and Humans. This may be particular to some need within 4e that I am unaware of, but it might be useful to include how the various races are considered in Gate Pass and give a section to it.</p><p></p><p>The Districts, Walls, and Gates section has a nice flavor text snippet in here that helps set the scene in the 4e guide (page 3 of the 4e guide). I would use that though I would probably keep the font uniform throughout the snippet.</p><p></p><p>I would quibble about the DC 19 Strength (Athletics) check at the bottom of page 2. I would convert from the 3.5 – 25 climb check to be either a 17 or 18, but that’s honestly a quibble. </p><p></p><p>Page 3:</p><p></p><p>This whole section has better structure in the 4e guide. I would copy that structure. </p><p></p><p>I like the inclusion of the City Map. My guess is that you don’t have access to old image files to edit, but I would prefer that the map not include the Poison Apple Pub (though the 4e version includes an even more explicit map so probably a wash).</p><p></p><p>I like the stats for the wall and gates. They fit the 5e mode (kudos for remembering about Damage Thresholds). I would quibble about the DC 26 Strength Check. I would put it around 23 or 24 and include (Athletics). Still, just a quibble.</p><p></p><p>The 4e version includes material describing the east and west walls that would be useful to include.</p><p></p><p>The 4e version includes material describing the Typical Gates (first paragraph) that would be useful to include.</p><p></p><p>Page 4:</p><p></p><p>The 4e version includes another flavor snippet under ‘City History and Myths’. I would include it.</p><p></p><p>I really like the ‘Famous Myths’ box. I do wonder if you could add a little texture to the red (see the 4e version), but that would be at the risk of printer friendliness. I would play with the ‘Famous Myths’ title in the black portion. Possibly shift the font, increase the size, and/or center it. I’m not sure what would look the best, but the title needs to pop more.</p><p></p><p>Under ‘The Wavering Maiden’, “The Tidereaver Kraken seeks to explore…” should be switched to sought. </p><p></p><p>Page 5:</p><p></p><p>I love the ‘Festival of Dreams’ box. Same notes apply as to the ‘Famous Myths’ box, but the art chosen is lovely, evocative, and immediately draws your attention. I would love it if the art more fully matched the size of the box (see the 4e guide’s layout), but I think you may be constrained by your layout program here.</p><p></p><p>I went back and looked. You aren’t indenting the initial paragraph of your subheadings, but you did back on page 1 for your main heading. I would encourage indenting all your paragraphs (pedantic, I know).</p><p></p><p>The 4e version includes a rundown of actual temples in the city. The gods are still left general to fit the AP’s goal of being able to plug into a DM’s chosen cosmology, but they add a great bit of flavor to the city. I would include them.</p><p></p><p>Page 6:</p><p></p><p>I love the addition of the griffon art, but I do wish it wasn’t quite so square. I recognize that you’re at the mercy of the art you have though. I would feel better about it if it wasn’t in the middle of the page. I’m not sure if you could move text around to get it at the bottom of the page, but I think it would look better there.</p><p></p><p>‘Gabal’s School’ – the 4e version expands Gabal’s scorn to warlocks as well. That seems worth keeping.</p><p></p><p>‘Thieves’ Guild’ – who doesn’t love Rantle? Is there any art of him that could be slotted in here? The picture that appears on page 8 of the 4e version maybe?</p><p></p><p>I like that you move the Gate Pass feats to a different section of the book. </p><p></p><p>Page 7:</p><p></p><p>The 4e version makes the decision to include the regional map at this point. I think that’s a better choice. It gives an immediate visual to what you’re reading. I also like the 4e version of the map. They touched it up a little to give it some flavor.</p><p></p><p>The 4e version includes an extra few sentences describing Ragos that might be worth including. </p><p></p><p>I would prefer a sidebar for Ragos in line with how 4e dealt with Gate Pass above. </p><p></p><p>Page 8:</p><p></p><p>‘The Inquisitors’ mentions asking your GM about their abilities being available to PCs. I very much hope that you follow up on that with rules later in the document or in the campaign guide. A former Inquisitor fleeing from Leska is a great character concept.</p><p></p><p>I would like to see some of the inquisitor art here instead of moving onto the Shahalesti. The 4e guide has one and I remember a very cool ink drawing of one in the campaign. Either would really help sell the villains.</p><p></p><p>Again, I would love a sidebar for Calanis even if small.</p><p></p><p>Page 9:</p><p></p><p>The 4e version contains an extra paragraph on how Shahalesti tends to act during times of war which is helpful.</p><p></p><p>Page 10:</p><p></p><p>Bresk would be well served with a sidebar and including some short snippets of the eight feudal holdings and their leaders would give PCs a chance to plug their characters into the setting (I had a PC who wanted to be a noble so I had her be Gallo’s daughter which worked wonderfully).</p><p></p><p>Let me continue to commend you for choosing to move all game mechanic content to a separate section.</p><p></p><p>‘Sindaire’ – I would love a sidebar for Turinn and a name for the Exarch. I can’t recall if he/she is named in the campaign, but details like that help especially when alliance building.</p><p></p><p>You’re missing Ostalin entirely. It should be between the Knights and the Monastery. </p><p></p><p>Page 11 (New Rules)</p><p></p><p>The 4e guide has a fantastic introduction in this section (page 8 of that guide) that would be helpful to you. I would strongly encourage you to use the section that talks about the various races and where they fit in the world (editing the Eladrin section, of course).</p><p></p><p>I do think some custom backgrounds could be a great addition to the guide. I don’t think taking the Gate Pass feats and turning them into backgrounds is the way to go. I would consider using the Theme approach that Zeitgeist did (which you mention above). If you do that, then the abilities given are fine. If you keep them as backgrounds, the features are out of line with the core rules. Background features are almost always just flavorful things for your character and do not mechanically impact combat. Your backgrounds break that convention and, if kept, should be edited. You make note of that fact, but continue with it regardless. 3PP are held to a high standard for balance. You need to earn the trust of your potential customers. Don’t break with standard conventions here. Use the theme framework instead. </p><p></p><p>The abilities as written are fine for bonus feats at first level with a few exceptions. </p><p></p><p>Calvary Errant has unlimited usage (just restricted by action economy), but is a fringe benefit. It’s probably fine. </p><p></p><p>Civic Minded needs further restrictions. As written, it is copying the Mastermind rogue’s 3rd level ability. It’s to strong for a bonus feat. Limit it to once per short or long rest and you should be fine. </p><p></p><p>Student of War is to strong for a bonus feat. It would be fine for a real feat that costs an ASI, but not for a bonus feat. Consider tweaking it to focus on spell dueling. Off the cuff, I would say allow for a PC to roll an arcana check to identify a spell being cast once per round without using their reaction. As per Xanathar’s, that would allow a PC to identify a spell before casting Counterspell (which RAW is not possible at the moment though probably highly houseruled)</p><p></p><p>The Lookout is vague. What ability check is to be repeated? I’m guessing you want them to be able to reroll Perception versus the enemies Stealth, but clarity would be welcome here.</p><p></p><p>All that said, custom backgrounds that fit the campaign would be awesome. Lyceum student (or Gabal’s Graduate), Taranesti survivor, Ragesian deserter, etc…</p><p></p><p>Page 12:</p><p></p><p>Since you have moved all game content away from the setting information (which is the right decision), you should bring some of that information back into the item and ability descriptions. For example, Shatterspell should be noted as being a tool of the Inquisitors. It’s also probably underpriced for what it does. Consider how the 4e version details it (13) mentioning that it is difficult to find outside of Ragesia and increasing the cost. It is basically a Dispel Magic (a third level spell). 50 gp is not enough for that. It essentially functions as Spell Scroll of 3rd level (Uncommon), but anyone can use it by throwing. I would price it at the high end of Uncommon at 500gp.</p><p></p><p>I personally don’t like the approach you took in converting the feats. I’ll offer my thoughts one by one.</p><p></p><p>East Wind Style: The prerequisites are off base with standard 5e. I don’t like the idea of requiring Multiclassing before the feat is taken (multiclassing was part of the benefit in 3.5). I would just limit the prerequisite to Monk and grant the Shocking Grasp cantrip as part of the feat. </p><p></p><p>However, my actual preference is that you would look at the 4e paragon paths and consider making a Monk subclass for East Wind (vicious, tempestuous, Cha over Wis, and lightning) and one for West Wind that fully exploits the ideas there (Healing, movement, flight).</p><p></p><p>Shining Warrior: I would drop the prereq and grant the cantrip, Light, as part of the feat. </p><p></p><p>Again, my full preference would be a subclass for the Solei Palancis the fully exploits this idea (see the 4e paragon paths), but that may be beyond the scope of your project. </p><p></p><p>Spellduelist: This feels weak for a feat. I would probably shift this idea towards the Themes and the bonus 1st level feats and move the War Mage feature here for this feat. Though I still prefer being able to freely identify a spell being cast as being more useful and evocative for spell dueling than the deceit here. As written, this feels incredibly niche. </p><p></p><p>Vow of Healing: seems fine though the technical language seems unwieldy. I would have to spend time to figure out if there is a more elegant way to phrase it.</p><p></p><p>West Wind Style: See my notes on East Wind Style and my full preferences there. If kept as a feat, I would drop the Cleric prereq. I would drop the Fly spell bit and just keep the ki expenditure for fly speed. I might add the ability to simply cast Fly as per the spell for a cost of 4 ki (requiring a full action instead of bonus).</p><p></p><p>Page 15 and 16 Spells:</p><p></p><p>Cancel: This made sense as a spell in 3.5 with how they handled countering spells, but is not useful in 5e with how Counterspell is available. I appreciate that you have balanced it for second level (increased range, requiring an action and a reaction, requiring concentration), but I don’t feel it’s necessary. It was initially designed for the Inquisitors. I would move this to an Inquisitor ability (presuming that you are designing options for PCs to able to use in that regard). I would probably start with the idea of being able to Cancel (use Counterspell) as a cleric Channel Divinity and move off from there for how it would look as a class option for the various classes. That might actually be the most intriguing way to develop the Inquisitors. Instead of designing full subclasses or a separate class, you could make a few alternate class abilities that would replace other class abilities. Might be beyond your scope though.</p><p></p><p>Duelist’s Etiquette: This is mostly fine, but you need to specify that the ability only functions on magical effects that are cast or summoned within the circle. Otherwise, you could cast it in combat and the enemy mage 80’ away could cast Fireball on you and it would be turned into non lethal damage without him having the ability to end the spell by entering it.</p><p></p><p>Gabal’s Superior Missile: This was balanced in 3.5 by making it 2nd level. I would follow that pattern. As is, it is not balanced as a first level spell regardless of the restrictions that you’ve added. It is superior to Magic Missile and should be a higher level. I would balance it by holding it against Magic Missile at first level (which this has to be superior to) and Scorching Ray at second level (which should have better potential damage since it requires an attack roll). The extra abilities (hit behind cover and always hit) safely put it beyond Magic Missile and make it 2nd level. However, the damage doesn’t feel right to me. Consider that Scorching Ray has a range of 6-36 and requires an attack roll. Gabal’s has a range of 6-16 without an attack roll. That range seems to low for second level. I would drop the 1d4+1 per missile for a 1d6. That shifts the range from 3 to 18. Scorching Ray is still viable, but you don’t risk missing. I would actually like to shift each Missile to 2d4-1 to give you a range of 3-21, but I don’t know if there is precedent for subtracting from damage. </p><p></p><p>Stand the Heat: This is a perfect conversion and fills the narrative role it serves perfectly.</p><p></p><p>Page 16: Magic Item: </p><p></p><p>Potion Bracer: This a great conversion. </p><p></p><p>Page 16: Leader Feats:</p><p>I really do not like feat chains. I’m opposed to this design on that ground alone. I think you would be better served with a class or subclass design. Perhaps creating a suite of replacement class features that can be chosen with minimum level prereqs. I’ll still go through the feats.</p><p></p><p>Leadership Performance: This is fine. It requires some record keeping, but it’s balanced. There is a problem with how many times you can use it being tied to your spellcasting modifier when you may not be a spellcaster and take the feat. I would tie it to either Cha mod or Proficiency Bonus.</p><p></p><p>Iron-Willed Leader: Since you are using your Leadership Performances as a resource, you may want to reword the initial feat a bit to make it more clear that you are going to be using it as a resource. I don’t like feat chains so I don’t like the interaction with the prior feat. If I was designing it, I would shift the first ability to be something like when you or an ally within 30’ of you have to make a saving throw against a mind-affecting effect, you may spend your reaction to inspire either yours or their mental resolve granting them advantage on the saving throw. </p><p></p><p>For the second ability, I would keep it as is, but I would make it independent of the prior feat. I would allow the ability to be used Cha Mod times per rest (minimum 1).</p><p></p><p>Legendary Leader: I know this has high prereqs including an additional feat, but this feels to strong for a feat. The Dodge bonus action alone is kind of massive. I feel like this needs a redesign. You’re granting a persistent +3 (at least) to a lot of rolls with the only caveat being they remain within 30’. That would stack with a Paladin’s auras too, I believe. Then, for another expenditure, your giving temp hitpoints and Dodge (disadvantage on attacks on you) for a bonus? It’s a lot and it’s really powerful. I’m not sure you’ve considered how strong that would be. </p><p></p><p>Maneuver Leader: I would decouple this from Leadership Performance and limit it to 1/ short or long rest. Alternatively, I would limit it to one ally and allow for a number of uses equal to your Cha mod per rest.</p><p></p><p>Necrotic Leader: There is nothing in Leadership Performance that would limit it from being used on mindless undead that you count as allies. Note that you deleted the Intelligence requirements of the 3.5 version. As written, this feat is useless. If you adjust, then this still feels weak for a feat. It also doesn’t make much sense outside of a mechanical idea. How do you give a rousing speech to mindless undead? I think this was a poor design choice in 3.5 and should probably be dropped in 5e. If you keep it, it needs to be boosted somehow because 5e doesn’t really allow for the hordes of undead that necromancers would make in 3.5. It still happens, but not to the same scale. </p><p></p><p>Operation Leader: Your prereqs have proficiency in Stealth and Deception and then the text questions whether you have them. Drop the prereqs and drop the request for proficiency in skills. The abilities are fine regardless of proficiency. Decouple it from Leadership Performance and give the final ability a 1/rest and an hour duration. You might be fine to pop it up to Cha mod/rest. </p><p></p><p>Primal Leader: Suffers the same issues as Necrotic Leader. As written, this is a useless feat. </p><p></p><p>Spellwise Leader: I think you’ve overbalanced this. Decouple it from Leadership performance and set the prereq as the ability to cast a spell. Have the ability cost your reaction with all the other requirements (target someone with a spell that has already been targeted by a spell that round) and allow it to be used spellcasting mod times per rest.</p><p></p><p>Page 18: Commander Class</p><p></p><p>You’ve designed this class to directly interact with your leadership feats. Why not go the whole way and take that design and attach it to this class? Take some of the feats/ASIs of the fighter and replace them with leadership abilities. Everything else seems fine though Tactical Genius may be to strong. Scratch that, it is to strong. I just looked up other 18th level abilities. Giving all allies (no cap) an extra immediate full turn is game breaking strong. You need to rethink that one. </p><p></p><p>Page 18 and 19: Wayfarer Prestige Class</p><p></p><p>Please do not make a prestige class. Make it a bard subclass and feature some feats that can be taken if someone joins the Wayfarers. I don’t even want to read for balance. Prestige classes should stay in 3.5. They did not test well for 5e. Don’t bring them back. </p><p></p><p>There you go. There’s my thoughts. That took longer than I thought, but I hope its helpful.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="Matthan, post: 7307973, member: 20005"] I love WotBS and have been running it in 5e for a while now. I never bothered with a direct conversion of a lot the player material though so I’m really interested in what you’ve come up with. I’ve got the 3.5 and 4e versions pulled up too. My plan is to go through, compare, and offer my thoughts as they come. Hopefully, one or two will be helpful. Page 1: I like the broader margins versus the 3.5 version. The 4E version has a lovely header that would look nice brought over. I prefer the two columns of this and the 3.5 version over the 4e. The footers and page numbers of the 4e version pop more as well. This is my first time really looking through the 4e version. I didn’t realize that they had shifted Shahalesti into an Eladrin nation. That might be an interesting idea to consider as you think through the conversion. Perhaps the Shahalesti are high elves and the remaining Taranesti are a different subrace (Wild perhaps or a new subrace with some connections to shadow) Page 2: Again, the 4E version pops much better with its header and footer. It is also more visually distinct and useful with the gray sidebar that breaks down Gate Pass into quick game information. The 4e version also provides additional information not present in the 3.5 version. In your position, I would copy the 4e sidebar instead of the 3.5 stat block. I don’t recall seeing that kind of city statblock in 5e and the 4e one conveys a lot more information. The 4e version has a nice introductory paragraph that helps to give a sense for how common the knowledge included is. That’s something worth copying. Your first paragraph under ‘Traditions and Culture’ is missing an indent. The 4e version contains a section on race relations regarding Orcs, Half-Orcs, and Humans. This may be particular to some need within 4e that I am unaware of, but it might be useful to include how the various races are considered in Gate Pass and give a section to it. The Districts, Walls, and Gates section has a nice flavor text snippet in here that helps set the scene in the 4e guide (page 3 of the 4e guide). I would use that though I would probably keep the font uniform throughout the snippet. I would quibble about the DC 19 Strength (Athletics) check at the bottom of page 2. I would convert from the 3.5 – 25 climb check to be either a 17 or 18, but that’s honestly a quibble. Page 3: This whole section has better structure in the 4e guide. I would copy that structure. I like the inclusion of the City Map. My guess is that you don’t have access to old image files to edit, but I would prefer that the map not include the Poison Apple Pub (though the 4e version includes an even more explicit map so probably a wash). I like the stats for the wall and gates. They fit the 5e mode (kudos for remembering about Damage Thresholds). I would quibble about the DC 26 Strength Check. I would put it around 23 or 24 and include (Athletics). Still, just a quibble. The 4e version includes material describing the east and west walls that would be useful to include. The 4e version includes material describing the Typical Gates (first paragraph) that would be useful to include. Page 4: The 4e version includes another flavor snippet under ‘City History and Myths’. I would include it. I really like the ‘Famous Myths’ box. I do wonder if you could add a little texture to the red (see the 4e version), but that would be at the risk of printer friendliness. I would play with the ‘Famous Myths’ title in the black portion. Possibly shift the font, increase the size, and/or center it. I’m not sure what would look the best, but the title needs to pop more. Under ‘The Wavering Maiden’, “The Tidereaver Kraken seeks to explore…” should be switched to sought. Page 5: I love the ‘Festival of Dreams’ box. Same notes apply as to the ‘Famous Myths’ box, but the art chosen is lovely, evocative, and immediately draws your attention. I would love it if the art more fully matched the size of the box (see the 4e guide’s layout), but I think you may be constrained by your layout program here. I went back and looked. You aren’t indenting the initial paragraph of your subheadings, but you did back on page 1 for your main heading. I would encourage indenting all your paragraphs (pedantic, I know). The 4e version includes a rundown of actual temples in the city. The gods are still left general to fit the AP’s goal of being able to plug into a DM’s chosen cosmology, but they add a great bit of flavor to the city. I would include them. Page 6: I love the addition of the griffon art, but I do wish it wasn’t quite so square. I recognize that you’re at the mercy of the art you have though. I would feel better about it if it wasn’t in the middle of the page. I’m not sure if you could move text around to get it at the bottom of the page, but I think it would look better there. ‘Gabal’s School’ – the 4e version expands Gabal’s scorn to warlocks as well. That seems worth keeping. ‘Thieves’ Guild’ – who doesn’t love Rantle? Is there any art of him that could be slotted in here? The picture that appears on page 8 of the 4e version maybe? I like that you move the Gate Pass feats to a different section of the book. Page 7: The 4e version makes the decision to include the regional map at this point. I think that’s a better choice. It gives an immediate visual to what you’re reading. I also like the 4e version of the map. They touched it up a little to give it some flavor. The 4e version includes an extra few sentences describing Ragos that might be worth including. I would prefer a sidebar for Ragos in line with how 4e dealt with Gate Pass above. Page 8: ‘The Inquisitors’ mentions asking your GM about their abilities being available to PCs. I very much hope that you follow up on that with rules later in the document or in the campaign guide. A former Inquisitor fleeing from Leska is a great character concept. I would like to see some of the inquisitor art here instead of moving onto the Shahalesti. The 4e guide has one and I remember a very cool ink drawing of one in the campaign. Either would really help sell the villains. Again, I would love a sidebar for Calanis even if small. Page 9: The 4e version contains an extra paragraph on how Shahalesti tends to act during times of war which is helpful. Page 10: Bresk would be well served with a sidebar and including some short snippets of the eight feudal holdings and their leaders would give PCs a chance to plug their characters into the setting (I had a PC who wanted to be a noble so I had her be Gallo’s daughter which worked wonderfully). Let me continue to commend you for choosing to move all game mechanic content to a separate section. ‘Sindaire’ – I would love a sidebar for Turinn and a name for the Exarch. I can’t recall if he/she is named in the campaign, but details like that help especially when alliance building. You’re missing Ostalin entirely. It should be between the Knights and the Monastery. Page 11 (New Rules) The 4e guide has a fantastic introduction in this section (page 8 of that guide) that would be helpful to you. I would strongly encourage you to use the section that talks about the various races and where they fit in the world (editing the Eladrin section, of course). I do think some custom backgrounds could be a great addition to the guide. I don’t think taking the Gate Pass feats and turning them into backgrounds is the way to go. I would consider using the Theme approach that Zeitgeist did (which you mention above). If you do that, then the abilities given are fine. If you keep them as backgrounds, the features are out of line with the core rules. Background features are almost always just flavorful things for your character and do not mechanically impact combat. Your backgrounds break that convention and, if kept, should be edited. You make note of that fact, but continue with it regardless. 3PP are held to a high standard for balance. You need to earn the trust of your potential customers. Don’t break with standard conventions here. Use the theme framework instead. The abilities as written are fine for bonus feats at first level with a few exceptions. Calvary Errant has unlimited usage (just restricted by action economy), but is a fringe benefit. It’s probably fine. Civic Minded needs further restrictions. As written, it is copying the Mastermind rogue’s 3rd level ability. It’s to strong for a bonus feat. Limit it to once per short or long rest and you should be fine. Student of War is to strong for a bonus feat. It would be fine for a real feat that costs an ASI, but not for a bonus feat. Consider tweaking it to focus on spell dueling. Off the cuff, I would say allow for a PC to roll an arcana check to identify a spell being cast once per round without using their reaction. As per Xanathar’s, that would allow a PC to identify a spell before casting Counterspell (which RAW is not possible at the moment though probably highly houseruled) The Lookout is vague. What ability check is to be repeated? I’m guessing you want them to be able to reroll Perception versus the enemies Stealth, but clarity would be welcome here. All that said, custom backgrounds that fit the campaign would be awesome. Lyceum student (or Gabal’s Graduate), Taranesti survivor, Ragesian deserter, etc… Page 12: Since you have moved all game content away from the setting information (which is the right decision), you should bring some of that information back into the item and ability descriptions. For example, Shatterspell should be noted as being a tool of the Inquisitors. It’s also probably underpriced for what it does. Consider how the 4e version details it (13) mentioning that it is difficult to find outside of Ragesia and increasing the cost. It is basically a Dispel Magic (a third level spell). 50 gp is not enough for that. It essentially functions as Spell Scroll of 3rd level (Uncommon), but anyone can use it by throwing. I would price it at the high end of Uncommon at 500gp. I personally don’t like the approach you took in converting the feats. I’ll offer my thoughts one by one. East Wind Style: The prerequisites are off base with standard 5e. I don’t like the idea of requiring Multiclassing before the feat is taken (multiclassing was part of the benefit in 3.5). I would just limit the prerequisite to Monk and grant the Shocking Grasp cantrip as part of the feat. However, my actual preference is that you would look at the 4e paragon paths and consider making a Monk subclass for East Wind (vicious, tempestuous, Cha over Wis, and lightning) and one for West Wind that fully exploits the ideas there (Healing, movement, flight). Shining Warrior: I would drop the prereq and grant the cantrip, Light, as part of the feat. Again, my full preference would be a subclass for the Solei Palancis the fully exploits this idea (see the 4e paragon paths), but that may be beyond the scope of your project. Spellduelist: This feels weak for a feat. I would probably shift this idea towards the Themes and the bonus 1st level feats and move the War Mage feature here for this feat. Though I still prefer being able to freely identify a spell being cast as being more useful and evocative for spell dueling than the deceit here. As written, this feels incredibly niche. Vow of Healing: seems fine though the technical language seems unwieldy. I would have to spend time to figure out if there is a more elegant way to phrase it. West Wind Style: See my notes on East Wind Style and my full preferences there. If kept as a feat, I would drop the Cleric prereq. I would drop the Fly spell bit and just keep the ki expenditure for fly speed. I might add the ability to simply cast Fly as per the spell for a cost of 4 ki (requiring a full action instead of bonus). Page 15 and 16 Spells: Cancel: This made sense as a spell in 3.5 with how they handled countering spells, but is not useful in 5e with how Counterspell is available. I appreciate that you have balanced it for second level (increased range, requiring an action and a reaction, requiring concentration), but I don’t feel it’s necessary. It was initially designed for the Inquisitors. I would move this to an Inquisitor ability (presuming that you are designing options for PCs to able to use in that regard). I would probably start with the idea of being able to Cancel (use Counterspell) as a cleric Channel Divinity and move off from there for how it would look as a class option for the various classes. That might actually be the most intriguing way to develop the Inquisitors. Instead of designing full subclasses or a separate class, you could make a few alternate class abilities that would replace other class abilities. Might be beyond your scope though. Duelist’s Etiquette: This is mostly fine, but you need to specify that the ability only functions on magical effects that are cast or summoned within the circle. Otherwise, you could cast it in combat and the enemy mage 80’ away could cast Fireball on you and it would be turned into non lethal damage without him having the ability to end the spell by entering it. Gabal’s Superior Missile: This was balanced in 3.5 by making it 2nd level. I would follow that pattern. As is, it is not balanced as a first level spell regardless of the restrictions that you’ve added. It is superior to Magic Missile and should be a higher level. I would balance it by holding it against Magic Missile at first level (which this has to be superior to) and Scorching Ray at second level (which should have better potential damage since it requires an attack roll). The extra abilities (hit behind cover and always hit) safely put it beyond Magic Missile and make it 2nd level. However, the damage doesn’t feel right to me. Consider that Scorching Ray has a range of 6-36 and requires an attack roll. Gabal’s has a range of 6-16 without an attack roll. That range seems to low for second level. I would drop the 1d4+1 per missile for a 1d6. That shifts the range from 3 to 18. Scorching Ray is still viable, but you don’t risk missing. I would actually like to shift each Missile to 2d4-1 to give you a range of 3-21, but I don’t know if there is precedent for subtracting from damage. Stand the Heat: This is a perfect conversion and fills the narrative role it serves perfectly. Page 16: Magic Item: Potion Bracer: This a great conversion. Page 16: Leader Feats: I really do not like feat chains. I’m opposed to this design on that ground alone. I think you would be better served with a class or subclass design. Perhaps creating a suite of replacement class features that can be chosen with minimum level prereqs. I’ll still go through the feats. Leadership Performance: This is fine. It requires some record keeping, but it’s balanced. There is a problem with how many times you can use it being tied to your spellcasting modifier when you may not be a spellcaster and take the feat. I would tie it to either Cha mod or Proficiency Bonus. Iron-Willed Leader: Since you are using your Leadership Performances as a resource, you may want to reword the initial feat a bit to make it more clear that you are going to be using it as a resource. I don’t like feat chains so I don’t like the interaction with the prior feat. If I was designing it, I would shift the first ability to be something like when you or an ally within 30’ of you have to make a saving throw against a mind-affecting effect, you may spend your reaction to inspire either yours or their mental resolve granting them advantage on the saving throw. For the second ability, I would keep it as is, but I would make it independent of the prior feat. I would allow the ability to be used Cha Mod times per rest (minimum 1). Legendary Leader: I know this has high prereqs including an additional feat, but this feels to strong for a feat. The Dodge bonus action alone is kind of massive. I feel like this needs a redesign. You’re granting a persistent +3 (at least) to a lot of rolls with the only caveat being they remain within 30’. That would stack with a Paladin’s auras too, I believe. Then, for another expenditure, your giving temp hitpoints and Dodge (disadvantage on attacks on you) for a bonus? It’s a lot and it’s really powerful. I’m not sure you’ve considered how strong that would be. Maneuver Leader: I would decouple this from Leadership Performance and limit it to 1/ short or long rest. Alternatively, I would limit it to one ally and allow for a number of uses equal to your Cha mod per rest. Necrotic Leader: There is nothing in Leadership Performance that would limit it from being used on mindless undead that you count as allies. Note that you deleted the Intelligence requirements of the 3.5 version. As written, this feat is useless. If you adjust, then this still feels weak for a feat. It also doesn’t make much sense outside of a mechanical idea. How do you give a rousing speech to mindless undead? I think this was a poor design choice in 3.5 and should probably be dropped in 5e. If you keep it, it needs to be boosted somehow because 5e doesn’t really allow for the hordes of undead that necromancers would make in 3.5. It still happens, but not to the same scale. Operation Leader: Your prereqs have proficiency in Stealth and Deception and then the text questions whether you have them. Drop the prereqs and drop the request for proficiency in skills. The abilities are fine regardless of proficiency. Decouple it from Leadership Performance and give the final ability a 1/rest and an hour duration. You might be fine to pop it up to Cha mod/rest. Primal Leader: Suffers the same issues as Necrotic Leader. As written, this is a useless feat. Spellwise Leader: I think you’ve overbalanced this. Decouple it from Leadership performance and set the prereq as the ability to cast a spell. Have the ability cost your reaction with all the other requirements (target someone with a spell that has already been targeted by a spell that round) and allow it to be used spellcasting mod times per rest. Page 18: Commander Class You’ve designed this class to directly interact with your leadership feats. Why not go the whole way and take that design and attach it to this class? Take some of the feats/ASIs of the fighter and replace them with leadership abilities. Everything else seems fine though Tactical Genius may be to strong. Scratch that, it is to strong. I just looked up other 18th level abilities. Giving all allies (no cap) an extra immediate full turn is game breaking strong. You need to rethink that one. Page 18 and 19: Wayfarer Prestige Class Please do not make a prestige class. Make it a bard subclass and feature some feats that can be taken if someone joins the Wayfarers. I don’t even want to read for balance. Prestige classes should stay in 3.5. They did not test well for 5e. Don’t bring them back. There you go. There’s my thoughts. That took longer than I thought, but I hope its helpful. [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*Dungeons & Dragons
War of the Burning Sky 5e Player's Guide Preview!
Top