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="eris404" data-source="post: 2713295" data-attributes="member: 5338">That's a very good start, although I have a pretty specific vision of the class based on what is presented in the books. For example, the Abhorsens and Remembrancers in D&D terms would very much be good-aligned, since their purpose is to bind and/or destroy undead (the bells, however, could be used by necromancers for evil purposes, which is why some of the abilities seem "evil"). They are the heroes in the books and the defenders of the Old Kingdom.But having said that, I don't particularly like alignment or restrictions based on alignment anyway. I feel that if a player is going to abuse a class, alignment isn't going to stop them from doing it and I am considering doing away with alignment altogether in my games. Oddly enough, the one thing I am most wary of is making it too "bardish," as in, "oh, this is just the bard class with different abilities." The Abhorsen and Remembrancers were more like wizards or sorcerers (albeit with a militaristic bent, as they were trained in melee combat) that knew how to make specific effects with these bells by sounding a particular note (not a song, technically). Most of them were able to cast spells  before they learned how to use the bells. Maybe there should be a some sort of requirement for arcane spellcasting instead - that would open the class to be available to more classes. I also think I would use Knowledge (arcana) and/or Spellcraft instead of Knowledge (religion) for prerequisites.I'm working on a version to use in my game that I'll try to post as soon as I can.Thanks for posting this!</blockquote>

Verification