Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.
Rocket your D&D 5E and Level Up: Advanced 5E games into space! Alpha Star Magazine Is Launching... Right Now!

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Ashrym" data-source="post: 7795439" data-attributes="member: 6750235">Gut reaction:  I really like the flavour.I'm not sure it's necessarily a fit for wizards.  Historically it falls to bards, druids, or shamans to carry on oral traditions.  A shaman is arguably just a storyteller version of a bard but could be argued as a cleric (knowledge domain is very suitable to the oral tradition).  Druids in D&D don't match up to the role as a class but do suit your interpretation of it so that's where I would more likely put a lore-master as opposed to wizards (the musty old tome trope is hard to shake for wizards at this point too).For any character all it really takes is a custom background like a sage variant.  Give it proficiency in history and religion, probably a musical instrument, and access to a group who uses the oral tradition in order to access additional information.For a bard, intelligence skills and expertise covers it well, possibly adding in the keen mind feat, but that applies to druids and clerics as well.Mechanically, it seems interesting as something different from the typical wizard.  Loregiver is a large increase in the number of daily spells and seems a bit much unless the intent is the wizard loses those same free slots in the exchange.  Ritualistic practices is way too much.  Wizards have too many utility spells that are non-rituals utility spells to be freely casting them by adding via prep.  Scrap them and see if you can fill the flavour with something that doesn't add so many spells per day (my advice); it may work in your particular campaign (I don't know everything  ;-) )The chant mechanic looks viable.  It removes the risk of spell book loss and adds grouped spells so I might not allow for changing the order of the listed spells so that risk factor is more of a trade off than simply removed.</blockquote>

Verification