Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Li Shenron" data-source="post: 6015296" data-attributes="member: 1465">I think these are ok but maybe still a bit too weak/few concepts for a full class.Especially Poison... unfortunately D&D always makes poison just "bonus damage" (at least it was ability damage in 3ed, but since a lot of DMs cannot manage that, it will be just extra HP damage in 5e). How is that really going to be different from the Rogue's sneak attack or the Fighter's deadly strike. Of course there is some practical difference (sneak attack being situational, first and foremost), but there is however the risk that Poison is just another damage source. Boring...The problem with the Poison concept is that it really shines only as a plot device, but unfortunately this makes it great for a villain to use but unlikely to work for a PC.At the same time death attack is a-ok... but again it has to be significantly different from sneak attack to make sense. It could be a save-or-die ability, but again this is one of those things that 5e wants to stay away from.Agree on everything, these are cool ideas and shouldn't even be that hard to design!This is fairly traditional, and I like it.I have thought before that, instead of having to design another vancian variant (seems mandatory at the moment for 2 spellcasters to have at least slightly different mechanics) and another spell list, it might be nice to conceive the bard as someone who has access to everybody's spell lists to represent his "stray knowledge" of magic. It might actually be as simple as Bard casting rituals (which is itself a mechanic, but apparently nobody has anything against it being shared by different classes) and only rituals, but can pick his known rituals from anybody else's spell list. Maybe even the additional, unique ability to turn any spell into a ritual, while others can only cast as rituals spells that explicitly allow so.I like this idea a lot, I think you've already written this in another thread... but also see next.Warlord is too weak of a concept to be a class of its own. Auras are a great idea but work best if magical, both because you have many more design options for them and because they require less suspension of disbelief from players. Therefore auras should really be the defining mechanic of Paladins!The rest of the Warlord stuff should better become feats so that we can again have a leader fighter, but also a leader ranger, a leader rogue, a leader wizard, and everybody else...In conclusion, your assumption 1) really needs to be eliminated.</blockquote>

Verification