Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="RSIxidor" data-source="post: 7861411" data-attributes="member: 6695558">I think you've done excellent work and compacting the game like this is something I've seen others do, and have wanted to do myself. Usually it's at the cost of existing class features, though. That you've maintained them is impressive.Anyway, onto my thoughts about the details (note that I didn't read anyone else's comments, so sorry if it doubles up on some stuff).Your optional feats table, how does it handle that the fighter and rogue normally get more ASI/feat levels? Or does it? I disagree with your statement on ASIs. Most of the tables I've played with that have feats still focus on ASIs at least until the primary stat is maxed out. Feats are more interesting to me personally, but they are often build defining, so they are usually considered in creation of the character. Many players are happy with just what's in the class and subclass. I've also played at tables where you can get both ASI and feat simultaneously, and it was some wacky fun but that's definitely not for everyone. Back to my point, since feats is an optional addition in your system (as in 5E), maybe I'm worrying overmuch about it.Love the 1/2 prof, prof, prof+1/2 system. As in 5E, I think these should have been codified. For your system, perhaps "talented, proficient, expertise," with a clear definition of what it means to be each of those things. Perhaps unnecessary but I'll always comment this when I read systems.I love magic resistance for the Barbarian as a very flavorful feature but I dislike removing it for being attuned to stuff. To me, magic items and casting spells are very different things and a warrior utilizing a strong weapon or armor just makes sense. But as you mention in your sidebar, might not be everyone's cup of tea. But since their weapon attacks are magical, and they can basically cast detect magic, feels like a weird distinction to me.Unfaltering Stamina - definitely a good thing, and I like that they can go double CON for HP (sidenote, I hate rolling for HP, so if I were to use this, I'd modify that for my table. Not sure how yet, though, as I think max HP is too much).Taunting Jibe is nice for the bard.I think Investiture should be level 1. It's a choice that is somewhat build-defining. You'll get your subclass features at the same time, and in a similar way, taking a domain that gives weapon and armor proficiency is build defining. Postponing that to level 2 is something I don't care for, especially when you're already bringing everyone else's subclass choices down to level 1. This also feels like a way to do clerical sub-classes in a really simplified version of D&D where domains are not used (not really a criticism, just an observation). I guess I'd move CD back to two for that shift.I realize you have subclasses as optional. How do you feel about Ward of the Faith and a Light Domain cleric. Would they then get both features, effectively being able to impose disadvantage on attacks up to 8 times?Druid looks solid. Love fey bond, love natural resistance, love all of these new features. Probably main thing I'd want here is some built in way to use wild shape that isn't turning into an animal or plant, similar to some of the recent UAs like the one where you can summon a walking fire thing.Weapon Specialization seems too strong. I'd put the bonus to damage instead, or maybe a +1 to both. Consider archery fighting style plus weapon specialization. +4 to attack on top of ability and proficiency?Does indomitable still reroll the saving throw, or only add the bonus?Fighter might be a good place for that intimidating thing I mentioned earlier, though it feels just as at home on the barbarian. EDIT: I think I removed what I said earlier about intimidation. I really like the idea that intimidating fellows can frighten people, as in impose that condition. Something like the taunting jibe you've given bard.Knowledge is Power seems like it should be expertise if already proficient.I like the change to Lay on Hands, but now you aren't really laying hands on anything but air. Oh well, keep the name for history's sake.I really like Purity of Spirit but I don't like it at 9th. Doesn't seem like it should be limited to Cha times/long rest that late in the class features. Per short rest maybe, while at-will is probably too strong. Somewhere between might be perfect.I'd rebuild the ranger using inspiration from the UA variants, personally.Cunning Action expansions and Quick Thinking are nice.Warlock was where I was most excited to see what you did... but seems you're asking for help instead! I'm somewhat of the opinion that the warlock needs a bit of a redesign as well, but I'm just not sure where to start. They are very customizable with their invocations, their known and cast spells can be very limited due to the way pact magic and mystic arcanum work. Possibly redesigning this class would require making certain invocations part of the core of the class features rather than their own thing. Another tact might be to make the pact boons more important. Maybe your L3/L4/L5 features should have something to do with the boons. Part of the issue is that both the patron and the pact boon feel like subclasses, but the latter only gives a little but can still be very build defining. Expanded spell lists should become extra spells known rather than just given access to. Warlock's can already learn so few spells, just give them to them. It would also be better if they are all spells from outside of the warlock spell list, and they scale properly with the warlock's level but that might be outside the scope of what you're trying to do.I like the wizard stuff for the most part. Not sure I like wizardy but it's probably fine. I really dislike versatile casting. Casting two levels higher just to avoid using somatic or verbal feels very restrictive to me. Honestly, I'd probably go really simple here and have the player choose to skip verbal or somatic as long as both are in the spell. That doesn't do anything for verbal+material or somatic+material, though, where yours does.</blockquote>

Verification