Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="ClaytonCross" data-source="post: 7538734" data-attributes="member: 6880599">The point system is the book, we both agree on that. The alterations to apply it to the pact magic are my own. So you saying the point system doesn't exist and it does in the same breath is a critique on my wording not my point. Perhaps a miscommunication of our intend to each other. So let me attempt to clarify, The points system is out lined in the DMG and already exists as an option "Instead of gaining a number of spell slots to cast your spells from the Spellcasting feature" so its not a new mechanic to D&D which I felt was your complaint. I have modified it for "pact magic" since warlocks us it instead of "Spellcasting" which should be apparent and by my last post "However, I like the pact magic mechanic so I wanted to see if I could make it work with a Pact Magic style of play." and that I made this as a homebrew and marked it as much. Its not a new system, but it its a modification of it to work as a replacement of for Pact Magic which is also already in D&D and I am calling it sorcery points which is also an existing system in D&D that has an identical conversion point radio and it has been stated that the two are related. I would also point out that since it is an option for Sorcerers in which case the two points would be undisguisable except that the variant system allows the cast of spells directly from those points and Sorcerers are limited to level 5. So as a reply to, " it's a completely distinct system that probably interacts weirdly with other spellcasting" I didn't create anything new I only applied it differently. These are existing systems. However, if I misunderstood your point in that this is an adjustment to those systems... of course … that's is what makes it homebrew, but acts as others a ready act so I am not adding any complication but the short rest mechanic from pact magic and adjusting how many points you get, I did not create a "distinct system". Again this is word manipulation. You gain pact spell slots separately on short rests and sorcerers regain sorcery points separately already. These systems are already in place and exist in official rules. The only change is that this would allow 1 character to cast spells using points and spell slots instead of one or the other. Keeping them separate but maintaining the same functions means you take a lose converting spell slots into points and then using them to cast. That's not more complicated than playing a standard sorcerer, if anything is a little easier.Edit: I continued thinking about this a bit more after I posted this and found a loophole I had not considered in that the sorcerer point buy for spell slots is the same but the point a sorcerer gets is less because they can melt their spell slots into them and they get both at the same time. If they were to cross class into this subclass it would mean an exponential increase in sorcery points. Also, then number of level 1 smites would be higher than any class but Sorcerer with that in mind I would keep them separate as I stated before but they could only be used to buy warlock spells and fuel the two class meta magic options. The edits have been made above. The only issues this causes it that a multi-class with sorcerer means tracking 3 resources instead of 2 but I think the pay of makes it worth it and you would have to specifically chose this subclass so you would be going into that willingly.So this is a valid concern, but your missing a piece, in that your trading all the other possible sub-class features for flexible casting and spell list. The hexblade for example gets Expanded Spell List, Hexblade’s Curse, Hex Warrior for example instead. Would you want to trade the lose of Hexblade's Curse and Hex Warrior for flexible casting and the produce flame cantrip? If I was going pact of the blade or wanted to do more damage with eldritch blast … no. Shield is problematic, you were right, also with catnap. That was a good call so I removed them with other spells I had considered from the beginning. Non-detection also fits with magic thief them a bit more. your right about the Arcanum and that's why sorcerers are limited to level 5 spells too. I had originally done that as well but was looking at capping it at level 5. I think I should put it back. Good call. Then alter Arcanum to allow two choices instead, "Flexible Arcanum". It still address the flexible issue at higher levels but lack of higher spell slots is till an issue. I will edit that shortly.Well you have already given some useful feed back. I do see that the mechanics could distract but their is no reason you couldn't expand on the Syphon as a magic thief. Though "this is also put together badly" is too vague to be useful you are certainly capable of writing with detail and refining my idea.</blockquote>

Verification