Project Horizon (5e rebuild)

[white sparrow]

What if you didn't use Advantage for reckless?

I know you're much more of a supporter of Advantage/Disadvantage still compared to me, but feels as though that and how it doesn't stack may be an issue.

Like for instance, if for the first scenario, you got a +2 to your attacks while your enemy (1) got a +2 to its attacks against you.
While in the second scenario you got a +10 to your attacks while your enemies (5) each got a +2 to their attack against you; then that's a much heavier incentive.

[dawn robin]

That could work, though you are right I am more of an adv/disadv supporter. It doesn't necessarily attack the goal at the root and is moreso about getting to situations that might be risky rather than endure the results of a risky move. But... it is a much easier implementation than rebuilding Draw Steel Fury in 5e. I'll keep this option in mind

[tidal heron]

There's an ability in Darkest Dungeon that's a good analog to the barbarian tradeoff

Leper's ability Revenge, which boosts crit, damage, and accuracy at the cost of taking more damage

Perhaps something that can trade-off the damage resist for benefits (i.e. being even more reckless)?

[dawn robin]

Experimental Fury Rage, take 1

[dawn robin]

Honestly, expected to be wordier and take up more space than it does for a v1

[runic girder]

Reminder to me to share my Warrior to you if you want extra idea, it plays very similarly

[dawn robin]

I'm not sure if there's any possible way to math for how much fury a barb is likely to obtain in a fight...

[dawn robin]

Taking hits on purpose?

[runic girder]

Less that moreso gaining points as combat goes on

Warrior for me they gain Rage whenever they take an Attack action, which can be spent like this essentially

Altho one of the subs did gain bonus Rage when hit for a bit.

[runic girder]

If based on being targeted not really no, outside the starting PB Fury

[dawn robin]

Certainly seems like something that almost mandates playtest to see if its OP 😔

[runic girder]

That was kinda the problem with our Rage gains from subs. Protection which got bonus from taking hits either gained way too much or fairly little depending. Altho yours is more consistent being targeted , Protection we did on being hit

[tidal heron]

I do like that it somewhat mandates going for lower AC

[runic girder]

Thats also why we had ours be on Attack action

Reliably gained and measurable

[dawn robin]

this is... actually a worry of mine I only now realized

[runic girder]

But also very different flavor so wouldn't 100% recommend it

You could just have Fury be a passive element of Rage. And maybe get bonus if they get hit

[tidal heron]

I mean you're trading off by taking more damage in general, and you still need CON for your HP so your ac will always be something

[runic girder]

Like
Rage , gain Fury every round, gain a little extra under X conditions

[dawn robin]

Yah... though it reestablishes the idea of barb being an HP tax on the party because now they are trying to lose even more HP on purpose

I kinda fixed that with my Brutal Hit stuff giving Temp HP, but this undoes that...

[tidal heron]

Perhaps a limiter on the amount that can be gained per turn/round?

[dawn robin]

I think I'll have to note "taking damage from a non-melee attack", so fireball and ranged attacks still work, but melee doesn't become a farm

While in Rage, you gain 1 Fury when you are targeted by a melee attack, take damage from a non-melee attack, or make a Melee Attack against a creature.

now high AC isn't really punished?

[dawn robin]

and I'd be down to steal observe your Warrior's features

[runic girder]

Pls do. Glad to assist

Its a bit different flavor wise bc its moreso a Fighter rework than Barb. Its called Rage but id change the name if WoW didnt use it

[dawn robin]

I called mine Fury because that's what Draw Steel's barbarian is called which I stole the idea from

[runic girder]

But essentially they gain Rage every time they take the Attack action. Starts at 1, scales up to 3

It used to scale off the number of attacks landed with subs giving bonus (crits, manuevers cost 1 less, on taking damage). Crits too inconsistent, 1 less was fine, taking damage was like gambling as we called it. Bc uncapped Rage gain lead to some insane swings

https://www.gmbinder.com/share/-Oe2sJQ38--SrJpfJ2t_

[dawn robin]

also I just realized, how do I say "take damage from a non-melee attack" without it sounding like it still needs to be an attack

[dawn robin]

both two and three extra attacks at 11th level? What a level!

[runic girder]

Good catch 🤣 why this is a WIP

[runic girder]

Damage from a source that isnt a melee weapon attack?

[dawn robin]

Wording cleaned up a little, and the future ideas slightly expanded

I am still uncertain if this is a method I wanna do, as I do value Barbarian's simplicity greatly (love using them as DMPC's). But I do also think this is a great way to give them "spell-like-power" that is entirely fitting with their vibes. Until I get a playtest done though, I feel like I won't know for sure how it ends up feeling, both vibe wise and complexity wise

[twin palm]

Interesting, specially the unlimited rage part and no bonus action required.
Would other classes/subclasses get a similar treatment? For example, Bladesingers and their Bladesong?

[dawn robin]

You do love your bladesinger don't ya
Unfortunately, I probably won't do so for them, I do see them as a Wizard first, so Bladesinging is a secondary optional thing compared to Rage being Barb's whole deal

Barb would rage every battle if they could, but wizard would only bladesing in some

[runic girder]

Yee id say playtest is your only way to really "feel" how it goes at this point but cool stuff!

Glad to help wherever I could 😅 (speaking of which Warrior I gotta work on again soon, been a bit )

[dawn robin]

Oh also, we recently hit 10k messages in this thread, happy birthday?

[runic girder]

Damn the threads go deep

(But no makes sense you've done alot of work Rachayz, well earned tbh)

[dawn robin]

https://docs.google.com/document/d/e/2PACX-1vSqUta8wT2sayeYRqFE3i4hhxWtZQs0HuplAhgtLDe5dbqHi133M5Fl0EQCCTEV8D2WF7A4cova4SMC/pub
Did a basic playtest simulation, one with just 2 goblins and one with 4 wolves

summaries for those that don't wanna read it
Barb was level 2 and solo, and didn't have all class features (just some relevant to test)

For test 1, one range goblin one melee:

B never used a Fury Feature due to low HP of targets and none being close together. Ironhide would’ve been very useful if they had it, gonna swap Ironhide and Executioner for next test
And test 2, with 4 wolves, two starting in melee two needing to dash to enter
Ironhide was the MVP in this fight, saving barb from 5 damage and generating 4 Fury throughout this battle. Execution would’ve helped a bit too, but the durability can’t be matched. Whirlwind also had a chance to shine, it whittled down and eventually got W4 in Round 3. If allies were present, I’m sure there’d be more chances for it to do things too.

This also made me realize I need to note when the damage reduction happens, I updated the Ironhide language to no longer 2x Fury and specify it applies after resistance. Makes it most useful on attacks you resist which makes sense for “ironhide” too

[runic girder]

With the DR are you having this be a change to how it works in 5e then? DR in 5e applies before Resistances fun fact

Not saying you shouldnt just pointing it out

[dawn robin]

ye, I did have it that way originally but it wasn't super clear what kinda damage reduction type it was. I also felt it'd be easier to do it post-reduction, both so its 1:1 fury:damage, and it combos with resistance to basically 2x the value

[dawn robin]

one thing I will note, Barb got 5 Fury by the end of the 1st round at level 2 quite easily. I expected that to be a little harder (tho they only had 7 by the end of the 3rd). They also had generated 17 in the second trial by the end of round 4 (tho had burned all but 3)

I think Ironhide regenerating Fury might've been the turning point, they spent 6 on it and gained 6 from it, it also being extremely reliable as a Fury sink compared to the others being a little more situational is a bit much. I think I'll make it only refund 1 (as I do want some refund on full-reduction, as it 1) stops them from taking damage which would generate Fury sometimes, and 2) it doesn't just become additional HP, you now want to wait to use it until you take little enough damage to reduce to 0 for the efficient return)

I also buffed Whirlwind to now deal half the damage of the triggering attack, as while dealing AOE 3 damage at low level isn't bad, it falls off extremely fast. And this allows crits, weapon buffs, magic items, etc., to all benefit the whirlwind

I am also unsure of where Unstoppable's place in this new world is. I gave it by default to all Barbarians because its basically where I put the "Advantage on STR checks/saves" of rage. But... STR checks/saves are not actually that common, especially with shove/grapple now forcing the target to save. So I might just move it back to being a base passive of Rage alongside Resistance

[tidal heron]

by default yes, but 5.5 has a weird thing where it allows you to treat a laundry list of skills as STR while raging, which allows for something like that to trigger far more often than it would (if it gets mixed with the Primal Knowledge feature at some point)

perhaps a small feature that scales where barbarians can treat 1 skill as a STR check, which scales to 2 skills at a later level (level 10ish or later)?

so you have more of a chance to apply it to other skills, but you still have to make a choice as to what skills you want this feature to be possibly applicable to

[dawn robin]

Ironically, I do have that! One option of the Origin feature, the 0th-level feature for barbarian (only gain when taking this class at chargen, not multiclass)

Though you reminding me of that is now making me imagine a stealth focused barbarian

[novel patrol]

a stealthy barbarian is a menace to society.

a stealthy barbarian with thieves tools proficiency is a menace to mankind as a whole

i played one of those

[dawn robin]

A rogue with 1 level in this Barb would be very weird and scary, Rage to gain Advantage on Strength based Stealth

tho they wouldn't synergize very well otherwise

[novel patrol]

if you went for dual wielding shortswords or something youd get sneak attack on reckless attacks

its not the worst idea

ive considered building a rogue barb in 5e for a while, with like a very specific image in mind (basically a member of the Sons of Fenrir unit in Conquerors Blade because theyre badass). My issue is that rogue subclasses suck ass and none really fit the flavour or synergize well with barb

[dawn robin]

you won't have the HP to survive in melee as well though with that multiclass

which is what makes it... rough

[novel patrol]

i meeeaaan

barb 5 or 6/rogue 2 or 3/barb X the hp loss shouldn't be too bad

with possibly rogue up to 5th maybe at later levels if we wanted uncanny dodge

[dawn robin]

I do find it neat that now 2 Barb/2 Rogue and 2 Rogue/2 Barb are different builds... though I'm still unsure if I even want to encourage multiclassing in any way

[tidal heron]

I'd say origin-level feats or general feats to allow a pseudo-multiclass is probably enough

Like a Rogue-in-training type of feat

[dawn robin]

I did originally start with that idea, but the issue is it becomes extremely taxing. Like, you may only get 1-2 General feats in a whole campaign, compared to 5-10 levels worth of potential multiclassing

[tidal heron]

fair enough

[runic girder]

Good Multiclassing can burn

Altho you could do a PF2e approach. Ie keep them feats, but have an alternative rule to make these feats "free" alongside general feats

[dawn robin]

🤔 spend a level to gain a multiclass feat?

[runic girder]

Bc yeah multiclassing proves especially problematic especially with some changes ive made. And just been easier to say "if you really want this you get feats for it, but sometimes I might let you get them for free"

Ive even let my players do downtime training to get into these feats

[dawn robin]

Because I agree that multiclassing as is in 5e I highly dislike. But I also think there's a solid reason players want to mix stuff, and I think creative interactions sound cool. So I think there's a way to do it right, I just don't know it yet

[runic girder]

I think some alternative feat based system m/sub system will prove best

Bc you can be more selective on what other classes can get

Like you can have a Rogue Feat, but make the Cunning Action limited per LR, or Sneak Attack scales far less

This i think proves especially important as you do stuff like your Fury updates

Bc as you introduce more unique class mechanics and systems like that. It can prove a bit complicated to let players wholesale mix them. Especially tracking at tables

[dawn robin]

Yah, I did already make a semi-fix for the Origin features (they are not obtained when multiclassing, only when you first gain a level). Though I do think before I get much further I need to have a solid answer or at least direction of an answer for multiclassing

[runic girder]

That was at least my issue especially as ive made a point to give every martial their own unique resource/system to interact with. I had to remove multiclassing bc some options became a resource slog to track

Not to say the feats remove those resources entirely. But the feats heavily cap them

[dawn robin]

Daggerheart does it an interesting way where multiclassing removes your ability to improve your subclass

[runic girder]

Rather than someone getting as much Ki a Monk has at level 1 (i give them more to make their early levels feel less bad). They get 2 per SR. With each feat improving this amount by 1.

[dawn robin]

though not exactly how I wanna do it

ye, some limited form of stuff can work

[runic girder]

I was gonna say that can be an approach. Every sub level you can pick a class to MC into or a sub

Altho that would work best if you also standardized sub levels

Otherwise some classes can MC at weird off levels

[dawn robin]

Working a bit on Bard today, got some ideas for Origins

I'm still uncertain about their casting situation, I know a lotta folk make em half-casters and focus on their bard nature, and I'm also considering making them a no-caster... dunno. But I do want them to be more about performance as their core mechanic than just inspiring words, so I'm thinking about making them be a sorta... aura focused class? More actively chosen than paladin's passives, like, when combat starts start a song to grant X bonus etc etc

[twin palm]

Family could be Song of Rest (extra healing on short rest)
Tyrany could give Heroic Inspiration to a single creature on a short rest.
Wonder could learn a cantrip from any class?

Alternatively.

• Family: 1/LR, when a creature within 30 feets of you fails a saving throw, you can use your Reaction to make them reroll.
• Tirany: 1/LR, when a creature within 30 feets of you fails an attack roll, you can use your Reaction to make them reroll.
• Wonder: 1/LR, when a creature within 30 feets of you fails an ability check, you can use your Reaction to make them reroll.

[dawn robin]

I made standard inspiration be a reaction, so the second idea would unfortunately overlap pretty heavily there

Tho I do like the idea, it does fit thematically

[frank python]

Shenanigans giving tool proficiencies?

[twin palm]

Family: cook
Tyrany: smith
Wonder: herbalism

[dawn robin]

wonder would prob be tinkering tools tbh

tho I like them to be more of "build makers" rather than just tiny things you can get from elsewhere

[frank python]

No, I meant that "Trickery" or "Shenanigans" would make a good option to pick here

[dawn robin]

Which would it replace?

[frank python]

If you wanna keep 3... Hm, probably either Tyranny or Wonder. It's more similar to the latter, but the former is similarly on the nose

[dawn robin]

I feel like Family and Tyrany are the most core to what real "bards" would exist for the purpose of

[frank python]

I suppose. It does make sense to somehow merge Wonder and Trickery

[dawn robin]

is this a goal of the bard to teach trickery, or to be tricky?

it could be expanded on in the whispers subclass specifically

[frank python]

Be tricky. It seems to me like many people want bards to be semi-Rogue trickish characters, just with more social focus

It's what bards do in fiction quite often, because most worlds don't really want magic-level buffs from just hearing a song

[dawn robin]

They certainly still hold their roots of once being a rogue "subclass"

though I think it'd be weird in the Origin due to the others being lessons you tell others, and that one being a lesson for yourself

[frank python]

Honestly, that might be a bit too restrictive. Not all Bards will even want to perform at all

It's certainly not an easy class to think about, that's for sure

[dawn robin]

what is a bard?

I thought bards are explicitly performers and storytellers

[frank python]

That... is a good question, really

But yeah, I suppose just saying they're performers does work well enough

[dawn robin]

I've got this old subclass for Wizard that I might recycle into some ideas for the bard's auras

Also the Mystic Songs from the Troubadour (by somanyrobots)

[tidal heron]

there's a bard subclass known as maestro from DMsGuild, might want to look into that as well

it has aura-type abilities regarding things like movement speed and bonuses to saving throws against traps

[dawn robin]

free or paid?

[tidal heron]

Unknown, I've only accessed it through other means

[dawn robin]

God seeks to slow my progress with mild sickness, and its working

[dawn robin]

Considering this for Bard

Notably, this would also replace Expertise? Because now you add this to all checks, not just non-proficient

makes it so Rogue is even more unique by having expertise, makes it resistant to multiclassing (as its not PB based directly), prevents as massive of a number that bard can manifest

Fear would be if they can get Expertise some other way it'd go crrrrazy

[twin palm]

There is a feat that gives expertise

[dawn robin]

ye, I'm not sure if I either wanna just nerf that feat (I am not a big fan of expertise) or add a stipulation to JoAT to not add to Expertise

Expertise pro: Big number fun, 2x scaling is simple to track
Expertise con: Big number break bounds easy

[frank python]

Honestly, not bad? Would be better if PB didn't scale, but...

[tidal heron]

Class-specific skill bonus scaling?

[twin palm]

Expertise is nice but also weird, cause if double PB would be acceptable, why thinking on Expertise for attacks or saving throw feels bad? It feels bad cause we associate them for combat, but bounded accuracy is important for everything not just combat

[dawn robin]

It was neat in specific cases, back when it was like, unique to just rogue/bard. Then XGE made a limited racial feat with expertise. Then TCE made it for everyone.

But yah... combat vs non-combat be like

[dawn robin]

I think I might make the rogue variant of this only apply to all skill checks with proficiency, but be +1 this (so +2, +3, +4)

[runic girder]

Yeah I kinda decided to remove that feat recently 😅 but im also working on a skill feat subsystem, and those can give you expertise (thought being Bards and Rogues can get more of these feats outside the normal progression).

Like the idea you have to JoATs tho! But can see where the problem be for it if Expertise still exist on the class. Hmm

[dawn robin]

I am thinking about just... removing the concept of Expertise at all, like Ender (Ende?) said its kinda weird that double PB is crazy on attacks but fine on skill checks

[twin palm]

That being said, I think it is a feature that many people love and so removing it may be a bit harsh

[dawn robin]

that is the fear, though I think replacing it with something that is equal/better at low tiers and only tapers at higher can work

[twin palm]

If PB used the die variant in the DMG, Expertise could mean roll PB die twice and pick the highest. That would be lovely

Similar to some subclasses getting Advantage on Initiative, Expertise could mean that you always have Advantage on that check all the time. After all, getting Advantage is easy, anyone can take the Help action. Being Expert means that you are so good at it that nobody can help you, cause any idea they may offer is something that you have already tried/applied thanks to your expertise/knowledge/experience.

[dawn robin]

Yah, though that does mean such a character doesn't really work with the team anymore

[twin palm]

yeah...

Maybe if you would already have Advantage it gives you Tri Advantage (like Elven Accuracy)

At least it is a bit more friendly for bounded accuracy

[dawn robin]

while that would solve my problem, I'm not a huge fan of situational stacking

I might need to think on it

I also theorized at some point on basically... skill specific "feats" that expertise gives you

so if you gain expertise in Stealth, you get the Stealth Expert feat

that would line up with the weapon masteries stuff I did

[runic girder]

Thats kinda why im thinking of shifting it to a die system, most likely the scaling variant. Bc then you could honestly apply Expertise equally to about anything

[dawn robin]

The more you let the players get bonuses the more enemies need to scale to compensate

I'm more down for less vertical scaling and more horizontal

[tidal heron]

it also means that something like reliable talent doesnt always equal stupidly high skill checks automatically

it just means that your floor for skill checks would more or less equal to a person who rolls a 10 and has proficiency in that skill

[white sparrow]

Yeah, I just fully lean towards removal of expertise. The player positive feeling of "Big Number" is not worth the deleterious effects on gameplay.

[dawn robin]

Gonna be a hard sell for my group even tho I agree, as one of my players really likes the Big Number of expertise

[runic girder]

Oh for sure. Altho luckily if you change it as a system based rule, it can affect monsters more equally than say like. Weapon Masteries. And would open up more opportunities for monsters to interact with it especially in a combat context, since skills on monsters are so seldomly applied while attack rolls and saving throws would

[dawn robin]

First idea

for context, my Bardic Inspiration feature

wording isn't perfect yet, but I think it looks neat
Family is good for group skill checks like Stealth, or surviving AOEs together (and can benefit your own checks/saves?). Tyranny (fixed spelling) is good at making a fool of someone by giving them a bad ability check or attack and can protect your allies well (maybe too well with subtracting attacks... but compared to adding to your own attacks? IDK). And Wonder lets you get the 5e Inspiration method back if you really liked that

[frank python]

Yeah, this is definitely neat. Love me a good Boon/Order system

Though I worry it may be a touch restrictive for subclasses, as they will be able to add alternate uses, but not really improvements to it

[tidal heron]

some of it definitely steps on subclass toes a bit, though i think that's a given since this is rebuilding 5e, meaning some subclasses will get reworked

Tyranny in particular is noteworthy

[frank python]

I don't think the problem is stepping on toes, really. Rather the limitations of what a subclass can do

[dawn robin]

Tyranny does mirror that one sub that can add a BI to their AC against an attack, so I do plan to give that sub an alternate use

(as adding to AC and subtracting from attack is identical)

[tidal heron]

ah wait, was thinking of the subs that do it on saving throws for enemies

[dawn robin]

with how game-changing such an effect can be, I might either cut that entirely or have it be in the base class for all bards to enjoy

[dawn robin]

I've started drafting up Bard's spell list, reduced from 140 to 98. I might add new bard exclusives to help spice them up, as I am realizing that that's probably a good way to include new bard flavor options without forcing all bards to adhere to it

I think I've decided to move Bard to a half-caster, not fully cutting magic but not maxing it either. I think I might give them a means to get 6th-9th level spells still, maybe via a Warlock-y means

[runic girder]

Glad to see someone else deciding on the half caster superiority 👀

[dawn robin]

full caster bard is new to 5e, and I think it was bad

I think its possible to do it well if you gave them more bard-y spells, but I think its better to make the class play more bard-y instead

[white sparrow]

I don't necessarily disagree. But I see part of the issue as being in the conceptual stage of what their magic is and how it operates.

[dawn robin]

Do y'all think base bard should be vaguely "artsy" or solidly "music" btw?

because I noticed the class has to dance around actually saying "music" much as they want to encourage various art forms... but this makes the text feel much less unified

[runic girder]

For me Bards I wanted to focus more on them as storytellers rather than just artsy. The medium they utilize can vary but their magic comes from the power of words, either spoken or conveyed

[white sparrow]

I've considered from both angles but found them wanting.

I mostly err towards Storytelling, which song is often a vehicle for. But I still find it missing something foundational.

[dawn robin]

I have been thinking of making them... spell barbarians. AKA, have a "rage-like" state they enter during combat which enables their spellcasting (they cannot cast without it). Basically starting a melody, in which the spells they cast are chords and notes within

[runic girder]

Note my interpretation comes from how I try to interpret bringing Bards into WoW, where Words and Songs actually have alot of evidence to be powerful.

[runic girder]

From a mechanical sense ive kinda had a similar idea. Altho mine stemmed from wanting to expand Countercharm as an ability into a more broad system for Songs/Performances as id call them

Probably tying Bardic Inspiration into this as well

[dawn robin]

also, have you discovered or found clues towards what you think Bard is missing?

[twin palm]

So... now that it is a half-caster, ignoring level 6+ spells, how much did you actually reduced their spell list?

[dawn robin]

I still have 19 spells of 6+ level spells, so if they don't get those they have 79

[twin palm]

If they are half-casters how they get those spells? do you mean pact magic system instead of half-caster?

I don't understand

[dawn robin]

possibly

their design is still quite mutable, so I don't wanna fully remove options until I'm 100% on them

[twin palm]

If you want to give a bit more power to class features without cutting too much their spellcasting, you can move from full spellcaster to pact magic. That gives you "more budget" for class features

[white sparrow]

It's ironically difficult to put into words. So I don't think I quite have it nailed down with what I'm about to say.

The major thing is that I feel as though the different types of magic should be fairly strongly defined.

• Magic from Bloodline of Magical Creatures.
• Magic through Divine Power.
• Magic by Pacts with Otherworldly Patrons.
• Magic through communion with Nature Spirits.
• Magic through Extensive Study.

These, are all really firm to me. With the latter - the most difficult - being the only real option through which people can attain power without it stemming externally (either by engaging with others, or by ancestral engagement culminating in your birth). But accordingly, there are certain forces (mostly in resurrection) that are off limits - and cause the kind of desperation to attain that results in stories like lichdom and attempts to attain godhood by wizards. Being forbidden these things not meant for mortals, results in the pursuit leading to a moral descent.

Bards exist in a weird space. And that's partly because in previous editions, they were partly druids (due to irl bards and druids being of the same overall culture), so they have a number of druid spells, meaning that things like healing are parcelled into the Bard identity. But over the editions, they've been distanced from those ideas; yet also don't really have the same kind of academic backing that wizards do. They technically have Colleges, but they're described more like occasional group hang out sessions than the kind of archetypal Wizard Academy, and the difference between Learned Spells and a Spellbook, feels very signficant to me in terms of actually ascribing to that idea more strongly (because I favour that strong separation, and that separation mattering in-world and in-game, rather than a looser approach where it's perfunctory to their mechanics).

I don't really ascribe to the Weave as its so Faerun specific to me despite WotC's best attempts to present otherwise. And I don't have a Lord of the Rings/Narnia basis for my foundations of fantasy, so "words/songs of creation" aren't something I really think works or at least doesn't make a natural fit for me.

I have really started to take stock in the idea of Tiers of Play, and a Class existing within that framework, their role in the world and the types of feature they receive at higher levels differing according to what the Tier represents. Bard, I think is not something that scales well towards the idea of being Master of the Realm/Master of the World, especially with a looser concept to their magic (I don't think a "jack of all trades, picks up bits and pieces of magic" should be capable of reaching those magical heights as world-shapers). When it came to trying to label bards with Class Titles, they were the one that I ended up leaving empty. Because everything I could think of didnt' really reflect the scale of what they were; they were all kind of just words for run of the mill performers and orators. So...that kind of left me with a feeling that bards don't really have ascension as heroes; they are kind of stuck as the "Average Guy" level to some extent.

At the same time, I do feel as though Bards have a strong narrative role within Fantasy as a genre. They are consistently the figure that is the inspiring revolutionary - even if that doesn't seem like the role that they are, it is recurring as the story beat. And because JRPGs are a key part of my fictional foundation; the Songstress is something that does overall feel like a thing that I feel is worth existing especially as a Party Buffer.

It's something that I find troublesome because I don't really have a satisfying answer for myself.

[dawn robin]

As a small version of this, one of the issues I see is that bard feels like how merchant homebrew classes feel.

I’m not sure what the exact word is I’m looking for that compares these, but they give a similar, wrong vibe, compared to the other classes.

Maybe one thing I’m looking for is, every other class has some pretty obvious reasons why they are adventuring just based on the class name. But why is the bard adventuring?

[white sparrow]

Like they shouldn't be player characters but npcs almost?

[dawn robin]

Something like that, yeah

[white sparrow]

I don't exactly frame it as Why Do They Adventure, but I do agree it's a common issue.

[dawn robin]

I wonder if they would work better if they were returned to a rogue sub class

[white sparrow]

And honestly the magic aspect is kind of a part of this i think.

The external magic sources, you can very easily have the adventuring be required for their duty.
Wizard meanwhile, should always be seeking new scrolls.

I'd tried to approach it as a search for stories, but I don't think it works super well; especially in non-custom adventure formats.

[dawn robin]

Ok, maybe wild take but... what if they were spiderman

Imagine that bards are almost, a divinely appointed group tasked with maintaining the universe's stability. Repairing the tapestry of reality with song and story, toppling oppressive regimes, ensuring the past endures though tales

They don't need to know that's what they are doing, many bards simply found magic in their performances and leaned into it, but by doing so they are helping maintain reality and magic itself

No one bard is so important as to disrupt reality if they fail or die, but it allows a bard player in high tiers to persue quests unique to the role granted to bards

[white sparrow]

Not a bad idea at all. May prove something of a setting imposition would be my main worry.

I would probably expect this to kind of lean towards time travel/multiversal stuff, beyond just planar travel at high levels?

[dawn robin]

I could see multiversal stuff work well with Bard yah, where do you see Time Travel? To "fix" bad timelines or witness pasts that were forgotten you mean?

[white sparrow]

Yeah basically

[dawn robin]

Sounds fun

Would it be setting specific though, more than Cleric is?

[white sparrow]

A touch.

I generally err towards Standard Fantasy World TM as my standard. So gods exist, by extension clerics to me are fine. Stuff like Dark Sun i view as Abnormal, so should carry a total revamp in approach.

Divine Agents as Reality Guardians (which is separate to Cleric, as well), feels a step further though

[dawn robin]

Beyond being quite a dramatic role (fitting for the drama class), what parts do you think step over the bounds of a "standard" world?

or is it just the nature of one of the classes being defined as such a foundation of reality

[white sparrow]

Maybe.

[dawn robin]

P1: John Farmer, Fighter
P2: Asmodeus, Guardian of Reality

Given you view Clerics and Paladins as "chosen" by gods iirc, wouldn't the Bards just be in the same boat?

[white sparrow]

I think i would also tend to come back to a question of "Why Music?"

[dawn robin]

lean into musica universalis?

[white sparrow]

Cleric as chosen, Paladin as having Oath affirmed by one. Slight distinction.

[dawn robin]

I think "why music" could be a few things, though none are necessary

• musica universalis
• "harmony" being done easiest through music
• the ability for song and story to transcend and immortalize culture
• allows bards to be sorta... diplomats?

I could see this allowing alternate means of a bard doing magic without music to achieve similar purposes, perhaps other artforms that also bring harmony and transcend culture, immortalizing legends in a canvas

[dawn robin]

Invoking magic through music, dance, and verse, Bards are expert at inspiring others, soothing hurts, disheartening foes, and creating illusions. Bards can harmonize with the remnants of powers from creation that formed the planes, accessing the magic within. With this power, their inspiration transcends magical classification, culture, and language.

Bards are blessed by an ancient divine power such that their performances not only bring joy to those around them, but their acts serve to reinforce the tapestry of reality as they echo the words of creation.

A Bard's life is spent keeping the history of past kingdoms and peoples alive through story and loreseeking, seek to find that which is lost, and destroy villains that seek to prevent truth from surviving. Unlike your average entertainer, the Bard's bredth of knowledge and connection to the planes set them apart.

[dawn robin]

Decided to pull up 2e Bard just to see its origins as a Rogue prestige/sub/whatever thing and... huh

• it had a spellbook like wizard?
• they had an ability to alter NPC encounter reactions to be more positive
• inspiration was actually pretty similar to it is now, just more... 2e
• man counter-song seems to suck, it only affected other song magics. Some things never change
• Jack of All Trades was diet Identify....

[runic girder]

2e Bards were something 😅

Ive only recently dabbled in 2e for historical purposes. And wow things were different

[dawn robin]

Very rough idea

(saves are spellcasting DC)

[tidal heron]

Subclass or main class idea?

[dawn robin]

main class, if I'm making it a half-caster its gotta have some extra power in the base

and while it is another "ramp up" style thing, the goal with this is to only ramp up once (from into to verse), then maybe have an outro effect trigger on battle-end (like a post-battle heal)

[dawn robin]

Though I may end up having it all just happen at once. And if so, I'd make the Intro be a "start of turn/round" effect, Verse be a triggerable thing mid turn, and the Outro be a end of turn/round thing

[dawn robin]

Second thought on a day I didn't have much time to develop ideas, but I did think the climbing power thing didn't really work as well on Bard so walked it back. Current idea

[tidal heron]

so Paralyzing Doubt is started as a Swift Action, and you take a Reaction to make it actually work later?

[dawn robin]

Yes

The idea is for this to be like... magic "rage", so I do intend for there to also be a duration and methods to maintain the song (or make it forcibly end early if you fail to)

[dawn robin]

A little more text

With accompanying concepts

[twin palm]

Charisma score or Charisma modifier?

[dawn robin]

Score is booted in my version, so its modifier

[dawn robin]

Came up with some more ideas for the bard's Battlesong, with help from @short matrix @green pagoda in #brew_14 message

(I also just realized Heroic Leitmotif also nerfs your allies... gotta fix that lol)

[dawn robin]

Level 2, 7, and 15 should be the three levels that these are granted at. In addition to anything that appears in subclasses, which can vary (or maybe be standardized to specific levels?)

[tidal heron]

simplified it to just Verses and scrapped the Introductions system?

[dawn robin]

yah, I was gonna get all fancy, but as I imagined playing it, it just felt weird and overburdoning

I figured it'd be better to focus on the core rather than add small situational boosts. I could see later features or subclass have stuff that trigger "when you start the song", but it'd have to be weirdly limited to prevent you just spam-starting songs

[runic girder]

Yeah I was gonna say, I think focusing on the Verses as the main focus will just be simpler and feel better

You could do some extra effects that trigger when you start songs or end songs, or change verses etc. But those feel they could be situationally determined or subclass specific even rather than a part of the general system

[dawn robin]

mhm, I do like starting an idea as wide as possible so I can cut pieces off and better define it as I go

[runic girder]

I do the same depending on project. Easier to parse when you have alot of ideas going, and sometimes those ideas still can work in other spots

[dawn robin]

While I think a bit about Bard, I took a step back to Barbarian. Looking specifically at layout and readability for Fury features

[shrewd dust]

how did you make the format that has the fury on the other side?

[frank python]

5 would be cool if you could move the line below the header, I think? Or 4 with a line that isn't quite as strong

[shrewd dust]

that's really cool, thanks!

[dawn robin]

like this?

[frank python]

Well 5 obviously doesn't work right, but yeah, something along those lines. Maybe consider a color here, gray or otherwise? I've always found it kinda weird that due to the coloring, the chapter title ("Tests") can seem weaker than those very-bold-and-very-black feature names

[dawn robin]

with the former version, this is what it'd look like more specifically because there'd be features above and below it

I can probably tweak the gap size for the line too

[frank python]

This isn't bad, yeah. Though I do find the design of those specific lines fairly weird

how about this?

y'know, make it look like a self-contained "tile"

it can stack too (ignore my hand-pixelled corrections lol)

[dawn robin]

honestly, the little right-side point is kinda nice for this where it "points" at the cost

posted in #homebrew message to get some other ideas too

[frank python]

kinda, but it sure looks weird

[dawn robin]

how it'd look with more

[frank python]

It's not bad. But the pointy thingy just makes it look kinda weird

[dawn robin]

the vote so far is on this new version, v6

softer underline + unbolded cost

I might make it have the cost right-aligned even though the vote didn't side with such, purely to match the formatting of main features having the level to the right side

[frank python]

Not bad, yeah

and yeah, cost at the right would be neat if it's unbolded

[dawn robin]

Barb with the Fury version

[dawn robin]

Current concern, Brutal Hit and Fury seem like two disconnected features atm, and while Brutal Fury does link them, its in a very... meh way. I do really like Brutal Hit as a concept, and I also like Fury, but I think there needs to be a more direct way they combine...

[tidal heron]

what about swapping Brutal Hit and Brutal Fury?

so the fury gain ability is what you start off with, and the THP ability is an upgrade for later

[dawn robin]

🤔 that would make them appear more linked, though the ability to have more HP to gain Fury with (by taking damage and not dying) is what lets them gain more Fury at lower levels, kinda

Maybe... I could give both at once? Have basic Brutal Hit also add 1 Fury?

That'd be a nice combo of both fueling your power and giving you more buffer HP for gaining more

[dawn robin]

First attempt at a subclass and, actually fell into line quite well

only issue was I already had an AOE fear effect in base barb now so had to make a new thing for the capstone. Felt the immunity one fit best because its a kinda anti-synergy for most barbarians (given if you can't take damage, you don't gain as much Fury) but this one has powerful generation of Fury to both afford the high cost and still have plenty of Fury remaining

I am tempted to make the Blood for Blood able to refund your Reaction... maybe with enough of a Fury cost? Though messing with action economy can be dangerous

[dawn robin]

maybe

If you Brutal Hit with this attack, you regain your Reaction.

[dawn robin]

I made Frenzy only apply to Attacks as I realized they scaled way too well as I did the math on expected Fury/turn, with the original feature making them have higher gains than a max level base barbarian at 5th level

Fury Gains

Expected triggers

• Damaged: 2x per round
• Missed by melee: 1x per round
• Attack: 2x per round (1x <5th level)
• Brutal Hit: ~0.67x per round (~0.42 <5th lvl)

Damaged/Missed Melee/Attack/Brutal : Expected Fury

• Level 01: 1/1/1/1 : 4.42 per round (Bers: 5.42 (3rd lvl))
• Level 05: 1/1/1/2 : 6.33 per round (Bers: 8.33)
• Level 09: 2/1/1/2 : 8.33 per round (Bers: 10.33)
• Level 13: 2/1/1/3 : 9 per round (Bers: 11)
• Level 15: 3/1/1/3 : 11 per round (Bers: 13)
• Level 17: 3/1/1/4 : 11.66 per round (Bers: 13.66)

the math for current expectations

Annotated the Bers so I can reference it better

[dawn robin]

Altered slightly, updated Frenzy to make it so TWF doesn't become optimal, and added an actual feature to Retaliation so its not just a Fury feature (as that seemed kinda bare)

[dawn robin]

Note for future me to consider before I sleep: action surge as a legendary action-style extra turn in combat

[dawn robin]

Have a player interested in World Tree, so I threw that one together. The original's thing that "Share Life Force" is replacing would grant ~7 THP at levels 3-8, ~10.5 at levels 9-15, and ~14 at levels 16-20. So at low levels its slightly worse (unless target's bloodied), but slowly becomes better and better at higher levels (also more reliable always as no dice)

[dawn robin]

Made some changes to the level 3 feature, might be a bit too crazy but I might run a test on it later to see how the math maths

[frank python]

I think it's fine to have two somewhat distinct features defining a class, as long as they lead to cohesive gameplay

[tidal heron]

Would this be something you can trigger only during your turn, or off-turn, or both?

[dawn robin]

definitely off-turn, it'd probably be like actual legendary actions

legendary action, take an action off-turn could be neat

I kinda like that 5.5e is pushing fighter to be slightly more tactical, so the idea of having LA's to happen right when you need them is neat. Also since Indominable is kinda Legendary Resistance, the pattern fits

[tidal heron]

How would this interact with the Samurai being able to do it when they drop to 0? Would that just go out the window?

Or would a re-write of that sub be in order

[dawn robin]

couldn't they do both?

[tidal heron]

True

[dawn robin]

I wonder if it'd be interesting to rebuild Fighter to kinda have unique legendary actions and stuff 🤔

[dawn robin]

concept, monsters vulnerable (not neccessarily double damage, just affected extra) to specific weapon categories

like, some Plants vulnerable to Axes

I know there's monsters that have resistance to like, non-silvered or non-adamantine weapons, its not a large stretch to consider some resistant to like, non-hammers?

[tidal heron]

what specifically makes axes more applicable than a sword, is the question? the matter of how the force is distributed through its blade?

[dawn robin]

I suppose whatever made them the tool of choice for tree cutting historically, which I think is roughly that?

Though as I think about it, I'm unsure what benefit it would provide. To the system as a whole I mean

[tidal heron]

perhaps go into this as a thought experiment, flesh it out a bit

with creature types having a stereotypical vulnerability to a weapon/damage type, but not all of them fitting that mold

[dawn robin]

The issue now is I'm struggling to think of anything else that'd do this

not much that a weapon property wouldn't do better... hmm

[frank python]

Yeah damage types would probably work better

Just make B/P/S matter again

[dawn robin]

I was lookin back through my old ideas notepad and that was in there

guess I had better ideas lmao

[dawn robin]

So I've been looking at Bard again as I might be running one in an upcoming game

I've detailed their Battlesong a little better, framing the verses now sorta like Invocations so they can all be in one place to easily compare rather than scattered across various levels

The main issue I have with them ATM is... I'm unsure what I want Bard to be doing as its main thing, secondary to Spellcasting. If they are being made into a half-caster, I won't expect them to cast every turn, so I gotta have something to fill

most half-casters fill that with attacks (paladin/ranger), but I don't feel like bard is really martial-y? I mean they can be via subclasses, but their vibe isn't really focused on that. So I am thinking of doing like Artificer does and have them focus on Cantrips on their off-turns

ATM, Bard's cantrip options are not really too bard-y (for combat, the utility is fine). Thunderclap and Vicious Mockery is about all they have, and Thunderclap is situational and kinda bad. I don't really want them to be like a Warlock just spamming the one cantrip every turn with Vicious Mockery either

[runic girder]

This is actually what im doing tbh

I think taking a more artificer approach is a good sensible way to do it. While theyre not quite full casters I think you could experiment with their lower level casting potential akin to it

Are you doing anything to bring in Magical Secrets style features still?

That could also be a way to bring in cantrips while not just putting them all on their list

I was considering doing something for them basically as their source of inspiration to mirror Magical Secrets. You pick a source and each of them let's you pick a cantrip and a spell of each spell level from that source

So like Divinely Inspired be Cleric

Inspired by Nature be Druid etc

To go further im also having other mechanics work with it

So like. Maybe they can cast one of, or each Inspired spell 1/LR for free, or with Bardic Inspiration die once per LR

Again emphasizing the more castery side of half casting.

Plus i wanna design new spells too, but this be in conjunction with the above rather than just doing it to "solve" that dilemma

[dawn robin]

Personally, I dislike overlap between classes. But, I do get that Bard is kinda the guy to do that

I do think you may be onto something with the idea of magical secrets being an earlier thing core to the class tho 🤔

[runic girder]

Thats kinda what I was thinking. I dislike overlap in classes generally, but it can work on a single class as a part of its concept. Which Bard i think works if you flavor it right

Kinda why I went with the Inspired angle. Bc to me it can make sense a Bard Inspired by the Divine could dabble or emulate it. Selectively, why id limit it to 1 spell per spell level compared to how free form Magical Secrets is baseline

Not that you cant make that work mind. But I think it could work better as an option that has some other downside.

Like someone Inspired by their whims can pick from whichever spell list. Thats it. While the other sources of Inspiration could give other benefits

Like free castings of their Inspired Spells, or other minor benefits. Kinda like a mini sub

[dawn robin]

hmm, it slightly separates from the current vision I have for the source of bard's magic though

as I'm less about "your magic is from everything and you can do anything" and more about... almost being a godless cleric?

you pull magic from the roots of creation, from the magic the gods made the universe from. You don't really steal from sorcerer, warlock, or wizard stuff, that's newer. But closer to a druid/cleric

In such a way, I can simply expand the bard's spell list to include such spells without needing them to "steal" any

.
However... from a different POV you could view it less as "stealing" and moreso "learning the harmony"

you have a fundamental source of magic, it could do anything, you just don't know the right notes to play. But perhaps if you are exposed to the melody you can. So... copying spells from allies?

That might be an interesting thread to pull, the bard inspires their allies, and in turn their allies inspire the bard

the idea that the source of your inspiration is not just a moment in the past, but an ongoing occurrence every day. And if your party has no casters to "inspire you", the GM can throw enemy casters at you sorta like they'd drop spell scrolls for a wizard

[runic girder]

Thats kinda how im flavoring mine. Something in your past inspires you to take up wanting song/dance/performance and learn the art of it to bring it to life essentially. And words/song have power essentially akin to like words of creation

So yeah its less stealing but more finding the right harmony or way to express something to emulate it

[runic girder]

That could be neat too! I do like the idea of it having more ongoing elements to your inspiration. Altho I think you could have a bit of both. Something that sourced it and something that newly inspires them

But just depends what vibe you want to reinforce

[dawn robin]

Perhaps a mix, every once in a while (maybe every time they get a new spell slot tier) you automatically can steal manifest inspiration of a new spell, otherwise some version of spell-thief but delayed (and more support-y)

[runic girder]

Yeah thatd be what id be thinking

You get a 1st level Inspired spell, 2nd level etc

Rather than just you can take spells whenever you get a new spell, you get one when you unlock that spell level

Ive also been considering having this source of inspiration play a bit into other elements too. Like bonus skills/modifying certain spells related to it

Like say. You can make a Performance check in place of Nature /you can add Cha to your Nature checks for Inspired by Nature.

If that procs any ideas for you as well

[dawn robin]

Weirdly I see that more for Warlock, bard I don't see gaining knowledge through magic

So lemme try to get a big picture idea of this.

I imagine the auto-inspiration can be included in the bard's spellcasting feature itself, sorta like how old Eldritch Knight had that bit about "you only learn spells from X schools, except at Y levels"

Being inspired externally is going to be a bit more complex though

being inspired by a hostile creature, I could see two routes.

1. Basic spell-thief style, reaction to seeing a spell copy it and get 1 use of it (still gotta spend slots for it)
2. Wizard style, reaction steal ideas from spells you see, next time you prep spells you can prep from that list? Maybe lasts forever

inspired by allies, also two routes

1. Same as hostile, when it gets cast you learn it however the route chosen for hostile goes
2. An ally can (out of combat) show you a spell (without casting it), allowing you to cast it for a little while after while its fresh in your mind

[dawn robin]

V1

[runic girder]

Thats cool! Kinda like a Recall check for spells but then you can snag it

[dawn robin]

Theoretically, you could copy a spell from yourself. Like, if from a feat or magic item you cast a spell you could copy it.

Unsure if that's cool or something to try to prevent

[runic girder]

Its less gaining knowledge through magic itself, or studying it to obtain it. But a big part of Bards fantasy to me is pursuing things that inspires or motivates them. Its kinda what Magical Secrets is trying to get at tbh, but just in a very flavorless way

Least how I see it

[dawn robin]

So I'm pulling back to this

I think it works, I can't imagine a bard failing to maintain a Battlesong though unless like, paralyzed or unable to act

Though I suppose the same goes for Barbarian's Rage

I guess the idea for these features isn't really to make it super possible to break it early, but moreso to ensure the bard/barbarian actually plays like a bard/barbarian and isn't doing some weird exploit built?

(and to make stuns super scary)

Looking back at 3.5e barbarian rage

• Boosts STR/CON scores
• Boosts WILL saves
• Penalizes AC flatly
• Unable to use CHA/DEX/INT skills, concentration, spellcasting, magic items with command words or those that cast spells, can't use certain feats
• Lasts 3 + CON mod rounds
• If rage ends in combat, -2 STR, -2 DEX, can't "dash"
• Limited to 1 rage per combat, even if you can use it more
• Can rage once per day, +1 at 4th and every 4 levels after
• Entering rage doesn't require an action, but must be done as part of another action
  (3.5e barb had uncanny dodge! Tho it was very different)

[dawn robin]

Leaping to an entirely different corner of the rebuild (but somewhat related), Multiclassing as a concept arises once more, because I had some ideas

So there's a few ways to do it

• "Vanilla": ATM, you can do standard multiclassing just fine, you just only get the Origin feature from your level 1 class and not multiclasses
  • PRO: Familiar, full access to all* features of each class
  • CON: Easily exploitable, weird narrative of getting the skills that someone took years of their life to accumulate in the middle of an adventure, quite complex, overlapping features if someone else in the party is of the class you MC into
• Feats: A feat-path (sorta like the UA Lich, or the FR Faction things).
  • PRO: Simple, limits the gained features to less exploitable variants, can be different enough from the true class's features to make it not overlap as much, could have narrative prerequisites to fix the narrative issue?
  • CON: Feats are a high price, can only do it at very specific levels, most adventures will only grant the chance for a single feat gain so little chance of getting far up the tree
• "Prestige" style: 3-5 levels worth of features that mimic each class which are what you can put levels into to multiclass
  • PRO: Like feat-path
  • CON: Can't do more than a 3-5 level "dip"

The last one I think is what I might go for, its a recent idea I had and I kinda wanna see where it can go

I'm thinking of only having it go for 3 levels, which should be where all the main stuff you'd want would be. And if you go beyond 3 levels in a multiclass, that's not really a "dip" anymore imo?

There was a talk about narrative prerequisites for the feat-paths for stuff like Lich a few days ago and that really set my mind to this idea, and I wanna develop it now as I work on my class rebuilds to make a "mini-multiclass-class" variant of each

[frank python]

Last one might be best. Though personally I'm not sure there should be multiclassing at all, really

[dawn robin]

I agree, though my players seem to enjoy the option. And I recognize a lot of folk do like it, and it'd be weird to entirely axe it instead of replacing it with a similar thing

we'll see how the Prestige idea goes, if it works well it also opens the door to prestige classes of non-existant classes

[frank python]

You still need to figure out some way to tackle stuff like spell slots and Extra Attack in such cases

[dawn robin]

I'm interested to see how I might make that work too

[white sparrow]

I feel we typed up a largely similar thing at the same time. Though with different purpose.

[dawn robin]

from a certain perspective, yah, lol

[dawn robin]

WIP v1

With the "Minimum Level" requirement, it means I can put extra attack at level 3 in multiclasses as the earliest you can unlock it is level 6

[tidal heron]

Do you get the subclass from multiclassing in far enough, or no dice in that?

[frank python]

Well, that doesn't solve the problem that you delay it by multiclassing, no?

[dawn robin]

Ah you mean from your origin class... hmm

[tidal heron]

Perhaps disconnecting extra attack and martial features to have a scaling system similar to spellcasters?

[dawn robin]

I'm thinking no dice on that, as if I give watered down versions of features in the multiclass version I don't want every sub to restrict itself just for that

[dawn robin]

I probably could yah

[tidal heron]

So full martials progress to extra attack at level 3 if they go in, while half casters get at level 5 (similar to how 2nd level slots come on online)

As an example

[dawn robin]

Ye, or like spellcasting if you have at least 5 levels in martials, you get extra attack

A fighter 3/barb 2 would be 5 martial levels and get it

But a wizard would need to have two multiclasses, like wizard 5/barb 3/Fighter 2

Rogue wouldn't give martial progress 😔

[dawn robin]

(This assumes that multiclasses only have 3 levels to each of them)

[tidal heron]

Unless you give a choice for all martials between a big hit and rending enemies apart

[dawn robin]

Maybe rogue is special in that martial progress via multiclassing scales their sneak attack dice instead

But also their multiclass does contribute to another class getting extra attack?

[tidal heron]

Or perhaps treat rogues like the warlocks of martials

Separate entirely, yet similar enough with some features

[dawn robin]

So a fighter 3/rogue 2 has extra attack, but a rogue 3/fighter 2 just has 3d6 sneak attack

[dawn robin]

Perhaps yah

Tho the rogue multiclass surely will have sneak attack in it... hmm

Gonna have to think on rogue lol

[tidal heron]

Common idea: Rogues get a crit range increase of some kind

Maybe that could be applied to when they would normally reach extra attack scaling

And normal crits get even crunchier than the crit range-reliant ones, so those remain special

[dawn robin]

🤔 perhaps

I will also note... I am considering having Fighter gain Extra Attack (Quick Strike) earlier than 5th level

Thinking on Monk, who gets an extra punch at 1st level, and two (limited use) at 2nd level... why can't fighter get an extra attack at like... 2nd?

[runic girder]

Yeah im just doing the Feat path road, and just introducing an optional rule you can let people take 1 suite of multiclass feats/Path feats for free if you want a more powerful kind of game (akin to the free archetype rule in PF2e)

[dawn robin]

posing the fighter question here #brew_24 message

I also... have a thought about the potential early extra attack and a way to balance it around the potential action surge multiplying to 4 too early. Which is to once again look at the idea of fighter Surge (or even full fighter itself) to focus on the concept of Legendary Actions more centrally

imagine at 2nd level, Fighter learns its first Legendary Action, 1/round make an Attack after a hostile creature's turn

(it'd probably not be called Legendary Actions for fighter, but just referencing the mechanic we know)

[dawn robin]

Barbarian more written out

[dawn robin]

Also in other news, I've been thinking a lot about the fighter thing, changing surge to be a legendary action, and... idk I can't really see it working well.

There's just so much about surge's usefulness that's tied to doing something after the surge, like, move to enemy and surge attack, or surge to dash so you can attack, or surge to dodge instead of dodging after an enemy already goes, etc. LA Surge would be a big nerf

[dawn robin]

I also can't justify any form of a strict buff to fighter's power output, they are already doing top tier damage they don't need DPS increases. They just need to be able to do something out of combat

Yesterday I talked a bit about moving their Extra Attack feature to an earlier level

I think its possible to pull off, especially with many of my changes making it so early crazy combos (like the TWF feat BA attack) are less crazy and can't combo as well with stuff... but I'm not sure if the value achieved with that change would amount to much.

I do think I need to focus less on rebalancing their damage features and more about the out-of-combat utility they can provide

[tidal heron]

should they still retain the ability to use Second Wind for out-of-combat stuff?

i love using it for that, even if when combat comes around im basically out of uses bc im burning it so much and still tend to low-roll

[dawn robin]

I don't remember what class I did this on, but what I can do is basically have it recharge on encounter-start

so you can use it out-of-combat and still be confident you'll have it ready once combat happens

but if you use it mid combat, you won't have it post-combat till the next fight (or rest)

[dawn robin]

So while I'm working on some chargen options, I figured its about time I figured out my ability modifier generation method

I am removing Scores, so both base modifier generation for a level 1 PC and ASI improvements need to work with the -5/+5 scale rather than 1-20

I made a little coded score generator and toyed with it for a while to get a feel for how much I want the starting modifiers to vary, highs and lows etc., point buy style. Currently this is how I have it working:

• All six stats start at -2
• You cannot go below -2
• You can invest 1 Point to raise a stat by +1, or reduce to refund 1 point.
• Raising a stat from +2 to +3 costs 2 points (and refunds 2 when going from +3 to +2)
• The maximum a stat can be is +3
• Each class has one or two stats that it sets the minimum value to +1. This does NOT cost points. (eg: bard sets CHA to +1. Barbarian sets STR and CON to +1. Classes that require more stats to be functional intentionally get a leg up here)
• You have 15 points to spend (uncertain on this but it seems to give good sets?)

Some examples of this (cleric gets STR/WIS +1)

This is also mixing in the racial/background/whatever ASI's into basic chargen

Its... not perfect. For instance, the 3/1/3/0/2/-2 of that first Barbarian one is a perfectly 27 point achievable stat line. But the first bard one of -2/1/1/1/1/3 is only a 20 point one, the second being a 21 point one...

3/1/3/0/2/0 on barb would be 17 points, 31 5e points.
-2/3/1/1/0/3 on bard would be 17 points, 24 5e points.
Maybe closer

[frank python]

Honestly, seems pretty neat?

I still don't like how 5e handles ability scores in general, but you certainly fixed some issues here

Will ASIs grant a number of points? From what I've seen, people (including me) don't like having chargen rules be different from advanced rules, as it can lead to some perverse incentives

[dawn robin]

the reason I included class-based-minimums is because it's weird to me to be "penalized" from making a character you wanna make by needing certain stats to be functional with a class. And those that require more stats than others (paladin vs rogue) are penalized even more and can't really diversify. Point Buy I like, but because of these required stats it makes a lot of PCs of the same class very same-y

[dawn robin]

I'm still unsure how I'm gonna handle ASI, but atm the idea I think is to give a +1 stat plus a feat, with the optional choice of replacing the feat with another +1 to a different stat

which might be too much tbh, two +1's would be like giving two +2's in 5e

but maybe I could require the feat-replaced-ASI go to like... one of the three lowest stats you have? So you do benefit well from it, but you can't min-max your character as fast

[frank python]

Not bad, I suppose. How about just keeping the pointbuy, and saying "you get 2 points to add to your stats", probably with minor provisions for lowering stats too. And it's just 1 point cost until you're at +2 and then 2 point cost up to +5

[dawn robin]

🤔 maybe, as long as the points don't get too high, as that'd require someone pull up a calculator again to evaluate options

could be like... you choose between

• 2 points + feat
• 3 points

since I will be aiming to rebalance feats sorta like 5.5e, where the general feats are kinda half-feat power level

I'm also planning to have a Talent system (micro-feats, also class-specific sometimes), which previously would be "you can replace a feat with 2 talents". If I wanted to be fancy I could add the option of

• 1 point + 3 talents

but prob will keep it simple as

• 2 points + 2 talents

[frank python]

I mean, spending two points doesn't seem hard to me? It's literally just "improve two bad stats or one good one"

[dawn robin]

Ye, hence the "as long as points don't get too high". Like, if you gave 5 points, that'd be confusing

2-3 is pretty acceptable, though requiring a player reference chargen rules at every ASI level is... I'm not sure if that's a good thing?

Its so much cleaner to just do somethin like "+1 any stat"

[frank python]

I don't see how 5 points would be confusing tbh, but you probably don't want that much anyway. Level up doesn't happen often, it doesn't need to be very streamlined

[dawn robin]

I could see it as just spelling it out instead of a rules refernece?

[frank python]

Sure, but then it gets weird. It can be better to start with a Fighter that has +2 and suffer for a few levels to later save on the stat upgrades. Again, level-up is a rare thing

[dawn robin]

aka "Increase one stat by 1, or two stats both with +1 or less modifiers by 1"

[frank python]

Sure, no reason not to repeat things, and plenty of reasons to do so

[dawn robin]

Ability Improvement

Improve one Ability Modifier by 1 (max +5), or improve two Ability Modifiers by 1 (max +2).

Additionally, you learn a Feat, learn two Talents, or increase a different Ability Modifier by 1 (max +2).

You gain this feature again at 8th, 12th, 16th, and 19th level.

[frank python]

I worry if using half-feats only may limit your options a bit too much

[dawn robin]

I think 5.5e was able to pull it off

tho what they consider "half-feats" did increase in power, not to the peaks of 5e's non-half-feats, but not to the lows of 5e's half-feats

[frank python]

I do think "equivalent to getting +1 to your main modifier" was a good point for making some feats tbh

[dawn robin]

It was a point of reference to use, yah

(also mini question in #quick_questions message for wording unarmored prof)

[frank python]

Yeah, but also some effects are just stronger than half of that and nerfing them isn't always feasible

[dawn robin]

I suppose its more possible now with a system rebuild, right?

[frank python]

Well, you can't exactly nerf something like Elven Accuracy or +1 crit range or something

[restive idol]

says who?

[frank python]

Rules of the game, I suppose? You can't have someone roll half a die or add a fractional modifier

[restive idol]

I mean, in a rework ~
Like for me, I have stacking advantage - so "when you have adv, gain an extra stack" is immediately less powerful than "when you have advantage you can choose to reroll one"

[frank python]

Elven Accuracy has always been one extra die though?

[restive idol]

nope - Whenever you have advantage on an attack roll using Dexterity, Intelligence, Wisdom, or Charisma, you can reroll one of the dice once.

[frank python]

Oh, they changed it in 24?

[restive idol]

thats 14

xge

[frank python]

Point is, some effects are just too "monolithic" or "quantized" to easily nerf

Huh. Did I remember a previous version or something? Anyway, it doesn't change my point

[dawn robin]

If there was a feat that did a vorpal blade effect, I would simply remove it now because its too powerful for what a feat should be power-wise

similarly, if I run into a feat that I cannot break down in any way to a simpler/weaker version and its too powerful to be a feat, it'll cease to be a feat and become like, a supernatural boon?

Alternatively, since I'm making feats more frequent, it'll let me make feat-paths more viable so I could break it into multiple feats

[dawn robin]

you got any examples of some feats that are monolithic that you think would be really hard to "nerf"? I can start thinking about how I'll handle such

[tidal heron]

crossbow expert

[frank python]

Polearm Master in the same vein

The better version of Elven Accuracy too, probably?

[dawn robin]

Ironically, those two I kinda subsumed into weapon techniques (masteries) and fighting styles, so the feats probably won't exist in the same way at all - if they exist at all

elven accuracy... I do wonder if I'll keep racial feats at all. I used to love them, but they are a little weird... unsure on that yet

[frank python]

Well, it doesn't need to stay racial, no?

[dawn robin]

Wouldn't be very elven if not

but the mechanic could be put in a non-racial feat yes

[frank python]

Yeah, that's what I meant

It's kinda cool to always have better advantage. Maybe a tad strong with stuff like Barbarian, which may make balancing a bit hard

[tidal heron]

training to have the accuracy of an elf could still make it elven

[tidal heron]

barbarian cant technically use elven accuracy due to it being restricted to certain stats from what i remember

yea, it only works on Dex, Int, Wis, or Cha

[dawn robin]

Maybe something like... "extreme accuracy: When you have advantage, also gain a +1 bonus to hit"

or honestly, could be neat if there's a feat that just unlocks stacking advantage

[dawn robin]

stacking advantage is quite good tho, turns a mostly linear scale into an exponential... might be too good for a feat even tho having multiple sources of advantage isn't the most common

[frank python]

Yeah, this restriction is very nasty, but it might be necessary for balance

[frank python]

Eh. Is it that good against typical DCs/ACs? Yeah, sure, it's neat, but probably not that much. And if it only enables stacking, you're only gonna get is sometimes

[dawn robin]

on anyone with at-will advantage like barb, rogue, and many casters with spells, it can be quite usable

[tidal heron]

If Innate Sorcery gets kept, you could do some insane stuff with wild magic sorcery

Double/triple advantage cantrips and wild magic surges almost every turn

[dawn robin]

imagine...

[dawn robin]

So I'm finally typing up the part of the doc for detailing how to generate your abilities and... I've realized with classes giving a flat bump its going to be weird to make a Standard Array...

[tidal heron]

why not keep the standard array/rolling as normal, with the results then corresponding to a specific value for the stat

so 16 still equals +3, but you ignore the 16 in actual play as you've only recorded the +3

...unless that's just recreating the exact same issue as before

[dawn robin]

I wonder if there's a way to roll that results in the same values without needing to translate

though I do think rolling will be fine, I can probably leave it the same way. Standard Array though has the same problem that I was trying to fix with the new point buy, so it'll need some kinda modification

[frank python]

Could always have two (three?) different standard arrays for SAD and MAD classes, I suppose

[dawn robin]

True

[dawn robin]

Been toying with values trying to figure out a way to straight up roll for modifiers without having to have a translation table, this is the best I got so far... uses d3's tho

(top chart is standard, bottom is new, "4d3 drop lowest -6")

I'll... probably prefer doing a translation table rather than this

[dawn robin]

Current rules, also threw together a quick site for using the Point Buy method: https://rachayzgreen.net/5ehelp/abilitygen.html ||gotta use this domain when I can to get my money's worth||

[frank python]

How many possible spreads do you have? Perhaps it'd be easier to just roll on a table of them?

[dawn robin]

Maybe? I imagine quite a few spreads, maybe I'll math out how many viable ones there are

[tidal heron]

I do like the simplification of Point Buy

It always was annoying that you needed a table to reference how many points to spend to increase a stat beyond a certain point

[frank python]

Again, chargen doesn't happen often. Simplification is always neat, sure, but needing to reference a table during chargen (and potentially level-up) really isn't much of an issue

[dawn robin]

Don't worry, I've got plenty of tables still

[dawn robin]

Generated the sets

interesting that with this method, there is only 1 valid way to not have a +3 with the TWO list, and only 2 ways with the ONE list 5 ways with the ONE list

And honestly? All of these feel like possible sets I could see on a PC, the bottoms of both are the least likely as they are so spread out but I've seen PCs doing that lol

[frank python]

Well, that means the system works well, right?

[dawn robin]

I suppose so

[dawn robin]

Its been many months since I played dnd, but soon that will cease. I am now focusing on monsters, and in doing so I'm looking at my old Tactical Templates project: https://discord.com/channels/113801089362558983/1346563116598562816. I want to see how these might work with my other changes, and how I might want to alter how enemies work in general with this rebuild

[dawn robin]

So I've been inspired to try another angle on my approach to weapons

I've realized that while I think my current design allows new and interesting chargen choices to make builds that don't require feat-taxes as much or don't come online till 12th level, it completely lacks any form of energent design, narrative novelty, or martial progression

"Guy with axe is good with axe" works on paper... but doesn't really... inspire

.
So, current idea (inspired somewhat by Izzy) is to make a sorta... universal martial progression tree? A mirror to spellcasting and spell slots, as you gain levels gain new abilities you can learn and use.

I think that'd be interesting to be a way the martials can continue to gain new ways to engage with the game rather than having it all at level 1/2.

Something I don't want this to be is a mirror of the complexity of spells, I want there to be nice options that are simple and allow emergent interactions. Easy to say, less easy to implement though...

.
Current plan, I have figured out 6 "schools" for martial progression that tie into existing weapon properties. The idea being you can grab a Glaive with Heavy + Reach, and now if you invest in either of those "schools" you can do new things with the Glaive. But that doesn't lock you into the Glaive either, you can swap it out with similar weapons with similar properties to continue to gain the benefits, but it will lock you somewhat into a style of fighting

[frank python]

Well, so far it sounds good, if you manage to implement it

[dawn robin]

As usual, the hard part is making dreams a reality... yah
I might buy the Ryoko's guide book that has a similar concept in it to see how they did it, I've been hearing a lot about it and don't wanna have to reinvent the wheel if they already have a solid approach. Though I also backed their newer content and am kinda hoping its reprinted in that and the PDFs should be going out soon... maybe

[white sparrow]

How do you see the investment occurring?

Like, is it feat tied, customisation point selections, or something more play dependent?

[dawn robin]

I know your preferred option would be the latter, though I think I'm going to have it as a built-in progression for all martials like spellcasting is. I will probably cut things from classes to make them not bloated tho (as while many people consider martials unfun, they are strong and don't need pure buffs)

I could however see some "variant" options that could only be unlocked with proper narrative events occurring 🤔

[white sparrow]

I figured. But still a lot of ways to implement.

[dawn robin]

How would you view such a thing being implemented in your preferred way?

[white sparrow]

Like the way that metamagics are gained is a customisation point selection type, but its also something that i see as easily expandable upon and grantable via campaign rewards. Same goes for invocations.

Not sure. With my lightsaber stuff, i have holocrons which would need to be found, then which set some trials to reach the higher levels within it.

So for instance, to get Tier 2 with Makashi, you'd need to acquire a Holocron that teaches that, and then win 10 duels using Makashi (Which you have at Tier 1).

But im very much in a more structured setting framework, that makes that kind of thing possible.

[dawn robin]

indeed

like, if I only had to worry about monks with these trees, I could have some pretty solid and world-tied methods of unlocking each technique. You gotta find a martial arts school/temple that practices it and go learn it

but I do not wanna have to make a set of trees for each class

[dawn robin]

Though something I just realized, this is gonna make me have to wonder if Rogue is gonna get these

Rogue doesn't get fighting styles, and honestly I approve of that, fits their vibe to be more unstructured. But maybe these are closer to Masteries, so works for everyone? If so, I probably shouldn't call them Fighting Styles, would get confusing

[dawn robin]

First betas (with player options) released when pledges clear, June 2026.
Ah, a month, I can't possibly wait that long, time to reinvent wheels

[tidal heron]

So are some of the abilities going to be moreso passives like Weapon Masteries, outright passives, and actives like Weapon Action(ish)s?

[dawn robin]

yes

[tidal heron]

Ooh, interesting

How will you differentiate full martials from half martials (and possibly the gish subs) in terms of progression of abilities?

Will it be lesser number of properties to learn?

[dawn robin]

I think I'll do like spellcasting, have them go at half-progression rate through trees

[tidal heron]

And what will make fighters unique compared to others?

[tidal heron]

The ability to learn another tree at a lesser pace in addition to current?

How will FS initiate be handled (if kept)?

[dawn robin]

I'm unsure if this weapon tree will make Fighters more unique tbh, though possibly getting access to multiple trees at base instead of focusing on one? Or their extra feat-levels can instead be used to invest more in the tree? Unsure

[dawn robin]

Is that the one that gives more FS's to those that already have em, or the one that gives em to people that don't have em?

[tidal heron]

In 2024, it can only be given to those who have the feature, but in 2014 it was anyone could take it as long as they had weapon profiency with at least one martial weapon

[dawn robin]

I could see a world where you can replace a feat with progression

but I kinda wanna keep feats separate

to prevent any "feat tax" moments

[tidal heron]

Understandable

Feats as a means of telling character stories, not of providing power budget

[dawn robin]

something of the sort

though this would probably do similar to the previous thing I attempted with fighting styles/techniques where it would absorb/replace all the main "weapon feats" like polearm master or sharpshooter

[vital torrent]

My constructive criticism is that I think this list dances between the concepts of "how you fight" and "what you fight with", when those are both very separate concepts.

[dawn robin]

True, though only Defensive really has that right?

[vital torrent]

I would say Defensive, Ranged and Flurry all fit that, honestly.

[dawn robin]

🤔 how does ranged/flurry describe "what you fight with"?

[vital torrent]

Oh, I'm saying it's the opposite. Those three are "how you fight".

[dawn robin]

Oh... the goal is for all of them to be "how you fight with items with these properties"

[vital torrent]

• You fight "defensively".
• You fight "at range".
• You fight "with a flurry".

Though I'll admit flurry is the weak link in that list I gave.

I only mention this because I previously made a list that's more "how you fight" in a slightly broader sense that was:

• Offensive
• Defensive
• Daring
• Cautious
• Instinctive
• Methodical
• Destructive
• Protective

My PoV is that weapons with overlap (like with Heavy and Reach) might need a better differentiator in the same way that ranged (imo) shouldn't be all encompassing.

[dawn robin]

I see what you mean, specifically with something like "ranged" being so generic. But with how little ranged weapons differ (typically just... range), there are not many properties to link to there and I don't want these to become "axe tree, crossbow tree, firearm tree", etc.

Even with my expansion to weapon properties, they still are quite similar...

I do want these trees to be somewhat build-restrictive, not just a "tree of getting in their face, tree of getting out of their face" that any weapon can link to

[vital torrent]

For Ranged, I'd consider a split along series of ranges, so short, medium, and far. That's not to say you'd need all three, but having one I think is restrictive to fantasies in a way entirely unrelated to builds.

[dawn robin]

What kinda special moves would be unique to such ranges?

long range could have the like... volley fire? Short range speed? IDK what medium would have

[vital torrent]

Ahh, if we're doing maneuver type things it gets trickier. I've long been vocal about how range is boring with how you fight, considering you just shoot.

Long range I'd definitely say has volley stuff. Short range could even have pseudo-melee stuff akin to (but not actually) gun-kata.

Though I suppose you could make ranged only be medium and longer, and thrown could hold the line for short range.

[dawn robin]

Could do

[vital torrent]

My strat for these kind of ideas is making a mental video of said hypothetical character fighting and the ways they'd use their weapon's strengths.

The hard part I do think comes down to how you handle overlap and what concepts you "cut off" from being possible (not that doing so is bad).

[dawn robin]

so like, this is an example of another book (Ryoko's Yokai Realms) that does something similar to what I want

A sorta... tree of features you can go through to get small/major upgrades to the way you play

I don't wanna do it exactly as they do, for instance I want branches to be more isolated rather than mixable to nail down your style of play

[vital torrent]

Oh, don't get me wrong, I've made an entire set of 60 (max being 64 but I didn't get around to finish it because I'm probably scrapping it) fighting styles that are all in one of four trees, so I get the struggle. I actually started with 8 trees and went down to 4.

The big first step I've found is distinction.

[dawn robin]

which is one fear of making split up ranged trees... they will be similar and more easily make the user question "wait why can't I volley with the shortbow, the range is still quite far"

I can see Thrown being its own thing, the "short range", it makes sense it does some things different

the projectiles are far heavier, more reliant on the user's strength than the device's, etc

[vital torrent]

To answer this, I'd look at finding those points of differentiation between medium and long range.

[dawn robin]

One issue I have with this is... there are vanishingly few situations where extreme range is both a) useful and b) desired (by the GM)

dnd flourishes in dungeons, where a 100 ft. range would be itself a rare sight. And outside of them, shooting from 1000 ft. away is often a result of poor GM planning and a player doing a weird build to cause the GM pain

I truly struggle to think of a situation where extreme range is something a whole table would enjoy dealing with and utilizing, beyond specific campaigns like sea/space

[vital torrent]

You wanna know what that means? Why offer those weapons, then?

[dawn robin]

Why do they currently exist in dnd?

[vital torrent]

Because the goal is pseudo-historical accuracy. But if you're never gonna make encounters that use them and you don't wanna support them specifically...shouldn't they just not exist?

[dawn robin]

That's the big question isn't it

[vital torrent]

That's mostly me coming from the perspective that I dislike options that exist solely to exist, though.

[dawn robin]

if the situation arises where they are useful, and the world has NPCs that utilize them, and it makes sense for them to exist, players would be quite pulled out of the narrative

but, their mechanics are unused or actively detrimental to the system

as such, maybe the best way to deal with it is to instead make it so these new "masteries" simply are not useful at extreme range

there is Thrown, then there is Ranged (short/med), and nothing for long

[vital torrent]

Or even write a side-bar that says "Fuck super-long ranged weapons. Yes, they exist but they do nothing good for the game unless you want to play combats that involve one person shooting at someone slowly as they make their way closer."

As someone who cares about being pulled out of the narrative, that kind of sidebar is my jam because it entirely removes the onus from me having to make up a reason. The game says "because they're bad for the experience, next" and if I agree with that sidebar, I'm doing great.

[dawn robin]

IDK, I feel like I'm also someone that really cares about stayin in the narrative but would be pulled out by such things, especially if any of those niche situations come up

I'm also reducing the range on many spells to make them less crazy range too, but that's easier to justify because magic has no existing comparison

I could just... nerf the range of weapons to be more "balanced", but that's quite dissonant

[vital torrent]

To be clear, I'm saying that the sidebar would make those situations not come up at all.

[dawn robin]

Not with a table used to normal dnd

new players newly experiencing the system would go "oh ok the game isn't made for that", but vets would see it and go "what why, the game has functioned for years with them"

[vital torrent]

Then answer the vets' questions in the sidebar.

Could even provide the stats of the weapons and say they're optional and you made nothing for their investment for the above reasons.

How I see it, you have one of three options to engage with the issue:

• Include long range stuff with proper rewards and call out that they're unlikely to be used by most DMs because they present an actively unfun experience within the game in many cases.
• Exclude/include long range stuff by default, but offer it as a "use at your own risk" option without proper rewards, calling out that their range is their reward and the same thing above about their usage.
• Exclude long range stuff with the above callouts on why you aren't including it.

[dawn robin]

I'm also unsure if I am missing an actual benefit to these things existing

I don't wanna rip em out without fully understanding their purpose

[vital torrent]

I do think you pretty much captured it. The benefit is their range.

A Shortbow with something like Sharpshooter is going to pretty much cover every reasonable range for combat.

[vital torrent]

To wrap up my thoughts on this: The solution I don't like is the idea of including something with rewards for investment while recognizing that investment is unlikely to ever pay off for the reason the person invested in it.

[dawn robin]

I agree that option 1 is the worst

I do think that I might look at going with option 2, sorta. Where I leave them in, but have the "mastery benefits" and such not really improve them as much. Perhaps even something like my "sharpshooter" only applying to a more limited range, such as "you don't have disadvantage against targets within 100 ft. due to long range penalties"

[vital torrent]

I actually think "option 4" is the worst, and I'd say my ranking for them in order of my preference is 1, 3, 2.

[dawn robin]

order of preference or order of distaste? As you just said you don't like the idea of including rewards for things that are not going to be useful

and is your "option 4" my option? Because my option is just option 2 but more detailed in intent

[vital torrent]

Option 4 was the one I said I dislike.

[vital torrent]

What I dislike most of all is including rewards for options that aren't going to be useful most of the time and not calling that out. Essentially, I value informed choice/consent.

[dawn robin]

isn't that option 1?

Include long range stuff with proper rewards and call out that they're unlikely to be used by most DMs because they present an actively unfun experience within the game in many cases.

or you mean option 1 but without noting it to the reader

[vital torrent]

To me, Option 1 needs to include calling it out so people have informed choice, and Option 4 is Option 1 without that callout.

[dawn robin]

so its the worst if not mentioned, but the best if mentioned?

to you*

[vital torrent]

For my preferences, I'd say yeah. From an overall operative sense, I'd say 3 is the best because it makes it where the DM doesn't need to have the discussion at all.

[dawn robin]

#indepth_discussion message Posted my query to see if I can find better justification for extreme range weapons

[dawn robin]

So #indepth_discussion talks is making me think of one neat way to allow long range to exist without long range... existing?

A new action, perhaps even calling it the rogue one I removed, "Steady Aim". When you take the action (not bonus/swift action), you improve your range (both short and long) with ranged weapons. Then by default the ranges of these weapons are lowered, symbolizing your ability to quickly load and fire the weapons under pressure

.
Also the concept of making elevation matter for ranged, which would add a new facet of gameplay to ranged fighters

[dawn robin]

Also cataloguing Ash's idea here of making ranged attacks penalized if you move on the same turn (including maintaining stationary flight)

[dawn robin]

Ideas slightly written out

One thing I'm unsure about is the Steady Aim. ATM, it just requires 1 turn of invenstment to Steady then all attacks are fine after (not having to steady each shot, just steady your position)

(and as a note, I have removed Steady Aim from rogue so there's no overlap there)

[white sparrow]

Make it require more than 1 turn.

[dawn robin]

🤔 maybe it stacks, as in like, 2x after 1 turn, 3x after 2, 4x after 3 (maxed there)?

[white sparrow]

Be stationary for a minute would very effectively cull the problem areas.

[dawn robin]

Hmm, I do think it'd be neat to be potentially usable at the cost of an action + movement, it becomes far less "free" of a benefit

it has methods of countering, and heck just losing 1 turn of combat to setup is a very high price compared to just moving closer and shooting with the reduced range

It also should be something a wall guard should be able to do, and while the elevation rule would help them it makes little sense to need to sit there for a minute before you can start shooting to me

and yes, monsters/players don't need to be symmetrical, but this seems like a situation where its easy to maintain that

[frank python]

I'd probably still require repeating it between every shot (or, well, multiple shots, because Extra Attack), but keep the cost at a turn

Or honestly, I'd even consider having it cost one attack

Advantage of action cost: makes for clearly separated "volleys", thus reducing amount of needed tracking and stuff
Advantage of attack cost: smoother, less weird edge cases

[dawn robin]

RIP rogue

[tidal heron]

Flying directly above target at an absurd number of feet so you can orbital snipe them

[dawn robin]

What do you think is an appropriate Max for that bonus?

[dawn robin]

progress on ideas

[dawn robin]

Sampled out a formatting and some ideas

Left column is moreso about Throwing so you can get into proper Melee faster/with bonuses, Right is more about Throwing to keep distance

[dawn robin]

Not a huge fan of the central Ranged technique being a "you know that downside to your strategy, its not as bad a downside". Its not straight up Sharpshooter levels of "ignore your problems" as it only lessens the downside not removes, but still would prefer something else probably

[dawn robin]

And so the idea is, you pick one of the two paths for each technique path. So a Barbarian might grab the Path of Aggression Thrown Technique, gaining features as they level. I think it'd be like, get the first at level 2, second at 5th, third at 9th, and fourth at 13th.

Some martials more focused on such things like Fighter can pick multiple paths, possibly even both paths of the same tree (tho its less efficient, you only gain the 5th level thing once and the two trees would typically be entirely different playstyles)

[frank python]

Tbh, thrown users being mobile seems like a very valid part of the fantasy. I feel like mobility is basically the only advantage of thrown over ranged (especially with our ranged discussion a few days ago)

For ranged though, I would think about something else. "Mobile Ranged" and "Precise Ranged" could conceivably be the two columns

I wouldn't mind leaving the shooter with 10 movement speed, but I wouldn't take only as much from them

[dawn robin]

I do think it fits Thrown fine, but it doesn't really fit either ranged build very well

Thrown is all about being the middle-step of a plan, you gotta move after to execute on that plan. But ranged is the whole plan, and the point of the nerf is to force ranged weapon users to be smarter about positioning

[dawn robin]

And I'll note, Thrown weapons don't trigger the rule for Roaming Ranged Combat as they are not a Ranged Weapon

[dawn robin]

New version of Ranged

[frank python]

Hm... Will cover be common enough to make this worthwhile?

And lines are... kinda hard to use

Also the name "Rain of Ammunition" sounds wrong. Should be "Rain of Projectiles" or something

[dawn robin]

Projectiles sounds too modern to me imo...

My hope with Improved Cover is it means it encourages the Player to seek cover, and the GM to provide it

[frank python]

I mean, so does "ammunition". But the bigger problem is that "ammunition" is specifically those projectiles that haven't yet been shot

Just call it "Rain of Arrows", nobody will be mad about that

[dawn robin]

Rain of Arrows/Bolts/Bullets

[frank python]

Eww, guns

[dawn robin]

Slings too

[frank python]

I guess

I'm not sure how I feel about devoting an entire path to volleys though. They're a common enough fantasy, I suppose, but also significantly less realistic

[dawn robin]

What would you make the two paths for Ranged?

I think the issue is that Ranged really just... doesn't have a lot of existing things to link to? Not many unique properties, no strong fantasies tied to them beyond the "sniper" and the "rain" that I can think of, maybe the melee-archer (shooting point blank) but that isn't really something I wanna encourage methinks

One I can think of is the acrobat Archer, Hawkeye style, leaping around doing somersaults while shooting arrows in between leaps. But I'm unsure how such a concept would be implemented mechanically, seems mostly narrative?

[frank python]

Yeah, that's what I was thinking too. It seems to be fairly common (Legolas, Hawkeye), but I'm not sure how I'd implement it either, especially since Thrown kinda takes over this niche with its mobility

Still, I feel like it could be better than Rain

Or, y'know, make three paths?

[dawn robin]

Three would be quite crowded

[frank python]

That's only a layout issue, methinks

[dawn robin]

Even if I change the layout, unless I list each one like a subclass (which I don't wanna do) its going to be a lot of squished text

[dawn robin]

I could do it like Ryokos does it, where the tree has only a brief description and the full text is elsewhere?

[frank python]

Honestly... what if you stopped overthinking and just made the two paths "precise shooting" and "fast shooting"?

[dawn robin]

But I like this version where I don't have to reference a new location for each one

[frank python]

Could be neat too, especially if you wanted to include some sort of maneuvers

[dawn robin]

That's kinda what this is tho, Rainmaker is meant to be the speed guy

just not making it "make more attacks because fast" because thats boring

originally it was like TWF for ranged weapons where you could get BA attacks, but idk I don't think martials need a power/damage boost they need a utility boost

[frank python]

Sure, but also less realistic. Like, doing a rain of arrows itself is pretty unrealistic, and what if you're in a cave or building?

However, multishot is probably a more common fantasy, while being kiiiiinda realistic. So I suppose it's mostly a matter of renaming

[frank python]

You're not gonna make Fighting Styles give utilty boosts (though they could do a bit of mobility)

[dawn robin]

why not?

[frank python]

Because they're about using weapons

So have the Precise Archer that stands still and shoots really accurate shots, and the Quick Archer who shoots fast shots and can also move a little

[dawn robin]

Thrown had some nice utility, pushing or pulling targets is neat

[frank python]

Well, if you consider that utility, sure

[dawn robin]

forced movement is utlity yes

[frank python]

Heavy Rain can easily be reworked into Suppressive Fire (just, y'know, with a less modern name)

Probably doesn't need much more than a name change again

[dawn robin]

I am certainly still less happy with the Ranged tree so far, its just almost entirely "moe damage"

which isn't my goal

I'm fine with having some of that, but its overwhelming

[frank python]

That's why some kind of movement/trick shooting could work

[dawn robin]

Rain at least requires the fighter to rethink their approach a little bit

[frank python]

But I feel like the Sniper tree probably should include lots of damage, because that's kinda the main thing there

[dawn robin]

I could have Sharpshooter also handle trickshots 🤔

like some kinda ricochet

[frank python]

I suppose

[dawn robin]

or even pinning shots

[frank python]

And yeah, if you want Sniper to have utility, you probably need Called Shots that can do stuff like slow, disarm etc.

[dawn robin]

Do you think Piercing Shot fits Sharpshooter?

I could replace that one...

[frank python]

It does fit, but it's both mechanically awkward and unrealistic, so...

[dawn robin]

One fear as I'm working on considering an Acrobat tree is... Acrobatics is a skill proficiency too

I mean, all ranged weapons require DEX to use so everyone on this tree should at least have decent Acrobatics...

[dawn robin]

Hmm, acrobat as a core fantasy is also messing with the concept of making ranged attackers more stationary via speed reductions

I think I need to rethink that core rule now too

[frank python]

Acrobat as a what, exactly? Fighting Style?

[dawn robin]

as replacing Rainmaker

[frank python]

I wouldn't do Acrobat, no. More like Quick Shooter, which can include a side of Acrobat, but also multishot and stuff

If you're only doing two paths, they need to be pretty broad

And then I guess Acrobat itself would probably be some kind of Rogue subclass or something?

[dawn robin]

I could see Acrobat being a central thing ngl

fits rogue, fighter, ranger

[frank python]

Yeah, but also fits a lot of different weapons

Dunno if you have a system for that

[dawn robin]

As in, more than ranged?

[frank python]

Yeah. You can be acrobatic with basically any weapon, except maybe a heavy axe, and even that's debatable

Of course, you can just make it work via a few separate paths, but...

[dawn robin]

I mean, being "nimble" or "fast" is universal yah, but specifically the vibe of the acrobat archer is very different to the vibe of a nimble dagger

there is the Flurry tree too anyway to help cover that stuff

[frank python]

I'd say it's pretty similar to being a Rapier-wielding swashbuckler?

But I wonder if it's even implementable in 5e honestly. We don't really have a system for environmental advantages and such

[dawn robin]

I consider the Elven Archer vibe to be very different to the Swashbuckler vibe

[dawn robin]

the benefits of making a new system, I can make it

[frank python]

It's straying pretty far from a 5e rebuild, but I guess you can

[dawn robin]

its a rebuild, not a rework tbf

[frank python]

I can totally see Jack Sparrow surfing a shield and Legolas shooting at a bag of flour to blind opponents

Honestly, maybe it should just be a Feat? "You can find ways to do cool tricks in any environment"

[dawn robin]

Did Legolas ever do cunning tricks? I thought they were just an ace sharpshooter

[frank python]

Well the shield surfing certainly counts

[dawn robin]

Current Sharpshooter remake btw

[frank python]

Lots of Oiliphant acrobatics too, though that's not strictly shooting

[frank python]

Seems neat. Would be cool if Focused Shot and Called Shot cancelled out though, and I feel like extra damage or crit range could work better than just a flat bonus?

I like effect that work like "add a 1d4 to the 1d20 roll", so they can trigger crits

[dawn robin]

How would that trigger a crit?

[frank python]

As in, you gain a bonus of +2, but the bonus counts towards the d20 roll, not the total result. So a nat 18 + 2 crits

What does Steady Aim currently do, btw? Range only?

[dawn robin]

Currently only range yes

with the intent of nerfing range globally for all ranged weapons

so this gets some of that back

[frank python]

I feel like Focused Shot could be a tad stronger then? If you ever want it to be usable in combat proper

[dawn robin]

+2 in exchange for a lost turn... maybe....
I could make it combo nicely with the central feature where like, you can Steady as a Swift action if you are in cover?

[frank python]

Not sure if that really makes sense in any way

[dawn robin]

No? Brace against cover to line up a shot easier, less under fire/threat from enemies?

[frank python]

I feel like a fairly natural way to do two paths is to make one of them lean into the strengths of the style, possibly even increasing the downside, while the other mitigates those downsides

So like, maybe a normal archer can move 5ft, a Sniper can move 0, but a Quick can move 15

Or rather, to avoid negative features, a Sniper gets stronger benefits if moving 0

[dawn robin]

Hmm, I'm not sure I want such small things, its really easy and memorable to go "shooting ranged attack means 0 speed", but a lot less memorable to go "shooting ranged attack means reduce speed by 10 ft. unless I can't spend 10 ft. then it means I can't shoot or have disadvantage..."

[frank python]

That's true, but I meant more to give an example of the idea

[dawn robin]

Hmm, lemme go back to the fundamentals on archers

so I see two extremes with them, the stationary sniper and the backflipping quickshooter

Mechanically, ranged users ATM that fight within ~30 ft. are not really "problematic", so no need to mess with stuff about that.

Ranged fighters beyond 90 ft. tho are more of a problem, not something I really wanna encourage even with the sharpshooter route

Those in between are... ok? Hard to engage with enemies, but that's the whole point of ranged fighting. And enemies with ranged weapons/spells are likely to still be able to be potential problems for them, they are not just removed from the game

[frank python]

Yeah, pretty much how I'd do the two paths

[dawn robin]

5e, and my rebuild, are more in the vein of "fantasy superheroes", even at lower tiers where you may not be as "super" you are still beyond average in most ways. And you are especially good at whatever you focus on, the wizard is likely to be the smartest person around, the fighter the master of combat, the bard a maestro of social powers.

Similarly, I expect archers to be quite proficient at the whole "archery" thing, not just pulling stunts that are expected of all archers but going above and beyond.

So, we return to mechanics. I do not want there to be a world where the archer is optimal at going ahead of the party and clearing out solo targets while everyone else sits back and watches. I also don't wanna nerf them so hard that they are basically fighting point-blank and are at risk of every turn a swordsman running up and smacking them without having to dash. They should be impressive, but not problematic

.
When it comes to melee combat, there are no direct downsides to it beyond range being limited. Run up to target, smack em, end turn. The "downside" is the fact that being melee requires you to position in dangerous places, and are a prime target for retaliation

The downside of being in ranged combat is... less options to do things atm? Can't grapple, can't do a lot of subclass things, less damage overall. And that kinda sucks, the perk of being safe is being boring

ya know what, lemme do some research, asking in #other_ttrpgs message to see how other games handle range stuff

[tidal heron]

Backflipping quickshooter immediately brings to mind Dante from Devil May Cry and the Gunslinger style

[dawn robin]

An obvious answer just hit me as I was researching how other systems do this... I could make Ranged combat have an extreme focus on status rather than damage

As in like, damage is pretty meh (I'm thinking, remove ability modifier from damage), instead each attack has a way of changing enemy and ally decisions/options

Simple decision things can be like the Called Shot bit, alter options they have and make it harder to do what they want. But I think I can go a step further... I don't want Ranged Combat to become tedious to accomplish, I want it to instead hold its own niche separate from melee

[tidal heron]

Called Shots would probably be more of a thing for subclasses more specialized into ranged combat

If you want to expand it to such a large degree

[dawn robin]

I could see base called-shots being in this technique, with the opportunity to expand on it given by subs/feats

[dawn robin]

Some Goals for Ranged Combat
DO...

• be engaging (more than point and shoot)
• have mechanics unique to it (more than just melee rules but 30 ft. away)
• require choices
• have positioning matter
  DON'T...
• be "optimal" compared to melee (nor inferior, it should be a choice, best done when both cannot be easily compared at all)
• require sacrificing the perks of ranged to do ranged
• be overcomplicated (should be simple)

[dawn robin]

Now, some lofty goals, not all of them I think I'll even aim to achieve. However, they are worth at least thinking about

[dawn robin]

As someone who likes playing martials, I do appreciate their simplicity which allows me to focus on other parts of the game; narrative stuff, class/sub stuff, etc.

Its sorta like that whole thing about, because there are no fixed rules for exploration/social, it has players think less about just clicking buttons on their character sheet to succeed and more about how their character can overcome it. A caster has so many possible buttons that they can be easily overwhelmed or prepare spells for every situation so they always have buttons

This is also making me realize, the way so many things can be called "optimal or not" is entirely, almost absolutely 100% due to combat being typically "deathmatch victory"

[frank python]

To be fair... have you made positioning matter for melee in the first place?

[dawn robin]

I mean, kinda via flanking, but also generally positioning to be able to do melee without taking maximum retribution

[dawn robin]

this has constantly come up as I've been working on my rework, so many things I want would be solved by solving this... I'm just really scared of opening that bag of worms because I know reworking how combat works universally is going to be the biggest undertaking of them all

Maybe I need to look into that battlemap guide thing Izzy was doing

[white sparrow]

I wish Flash still worked. Was a foash game i always returned to about bow fighting.

What do you mean by second Dont though?

[dawn robin]

The point of weapons that can be fired at range is to not be in the enemy's face, the reason you choose those options is to be safer. If I nerf ranged weapons to only be viable within 15 ft., there's no point

[dawn robin]

technically, it still does iirc? Its just not supported anymore

[white sparrow]

Everything died back then for me.

Anyway. Ill try and give some thought to where ive seen it work later.

[white sparrow]

Alright so, this game bowmaster really focused on the idea of a bunch of different types of arrows. You'd have to unlock with purchases, while you gained money by hitting shots (extra on headshots) against enemies/structures like catapults and enemy castles. If you were in a castle, they you couldn't be hit, so enemies would have to destroy the castle before you were actually vulnerable - though they could also just take your flag, which if they got it back to theirs, they win. You would win if you sent out troops to do the same (managing a population metre) or more commonly, just killed all of their guys with arrows.

It had several modes of play though; point and click, directional aim where you would need to adjust for gravity still, a pull back method, where you would need to adjust the force you apply to the arrow as well as the direction/placement. So there was a pretty siable difficulty adjustment where you would need to account for more variables, placing more onus on actual like, targetting skill.

Different enemies types would respond to different arrows differently; hitting the elemental weaknesses would nearly insta-kill anything that had the weakness, while armored enemies were jsut immune to non-AOE arrows - with the bouncing off of them unless it were a headshot/crit; that rebounded arrow could still affect an enemy in front of them though, so it wasn't necessarily wasted.

---

Because of this and other media I've consumed from childhood such as Ocarina of Time, I generally believe that within fantasy, the best approach to making archery interesting is to make the ammunition interesting (and limited). This couples very effectively with making environments engaging; as different ammunitions will easily change up the math on what is most effective in a given situation.

If I were to do a rework/build a fantasy system, then ontop of cutting ranges down to 60 ft, I'd also make arrows be entirely enforced as consumable. 20 arrows, the size of a quiver, would be the standard limit (and this may be enhanced by larger quivers that may be obtained as progresion, or potentially class features). In exchange for this attrition/consumable nature, I would set things such that ranged does more than melee. If a longsword does 1d8, a bow does 2d8. But you never run out of sword (or in the case of weapon maintenance/breakage, not on a metric determined by the amount of swings, at least). While having a range of much more accessible ammunition types; things like fire arrows, ice arrows, poison arrows, explosive arrows, would be available such that it is reasonable to restock for a few dungeon delves whenever you're at a town.

I do already engage in different ammunition types for D&D, with Ranger being able to make the arrows using the right plants and creature bits.

[dawn robin]

Interesting, another approach to consider

Did you use existing rules from some 3rd party/old edition for the special ammo, or is that custom stuff you made?

[white sparrow]

Just handled it myself. Nothing was particularly complex

[dawn robin]

Do you try to make monsters that are highly resistant to ranged unless the player uses a special arrow?

or do you more focus on the limited ammo side of stuff?

Limited ammo is always a tough one for me because of like, to make that matter you really need to make inventory for all players matter. GM says you can only carry 20 arrows because game reasons? Ok, well, everyone in the party now has a spare quiver they can hand me. The quiver takes up a "back slot"? Well, does every other class care about a back slot? It takes up "large inventory"? Ok, we now need full inventory rules for all PCs

[white sparrow]

I've never really found that to be an issue. Generally the situation is that they may have a lot of additional quivers, but they functionally have 1 for the duration of the dungeon; other stuff (just like any gear like bedrooms, mess kits, etc) being truncated away/left outside with transportation such as horses.

And I don't really tend towards monster resistances, nah. I generally don't tinker much with monsters themselves much, always find that is diminishing returns really compared to robust environmental interactivity. And even a decade ago I found Resistance/Immunity to be unsatisfying compared to Damage Reduction values.

But like, yeah, the goblinbane coated arrows obviously will have additional damage on goblins. And the sleep arrows can knock out creatures that can be put to sleep.

[dawn robin]

Do you find that that leads to more PCs using ranged? Even those that don't primarily use it, it seems like a great opener to every fight to use the double-damage-weapon

[white sparrow]

Not really.

[dawn robin]

as long as you've got Dex investment, no reason to leap in with a Rapier at the battle start when you could be using the 2d8 dex weapon that's safer and has trick ammo

[white sparrow]

I don't have double damage stuff.

I said that's what I'd do if I were to rework everything.

But, I would also consider the potential of proficiency for quivers, if the idea of others carrying quivers is a concern.

[dawn robin]

what would the lack of proficiency do? Risk losing your arrows as you travel?

[white sparrow]

what does wearing armor while lacking proficiency do?

[dawn robin]

Slow, bad casting, bad attacks?

[white sparrow]

Cause I'd assume it's in the same area of proficiencies.

[dawn robin]

I am considering higher base damage but no added modifier to damage...

instead of 1d8+mod, its 2d8, that sorta thing

[white sparrow]

Yeah. That's also factors to appraise.

[dawn robin]

I have really liked playing Daggerheart and noticing them doing that for ALL weapons, which enables them to do fancy stuff like have a weapon's damage be "1d8 + 4"

investing in your main stat still helps you land the hit, but doesn't factor into damage output (other than hitting more often, obviously)

[white sparrow]

The point to me anyway, would be to have it work differently to melee. Something I've always disliked is that a Fighter who is focused on ranged can just pick up a rapier and have absolutely no issues; there is no actual sacrifice or differences in choices.

[dawn robin]

That may also be due to the fact that most martials just get universal weapon profs

if fighter had to choose 5 weapons to get prof in, they couldn't just swap at a whim

[white sparrow]

But, I also dislike weapons being treated more as "What do I want my character to always use", as well.

I entirely just give magic gear irrespective of PCs, so that's something I sort of correct against.

[dawn robin]

I'm... less against such, mostly because I am more on the "superhero/anime" side of 5e

[white sparrow]

Yeah.

[dawn robin]

I do like each weapon choice actually mattering tho, less of "ok I got the best weapon now no reason to change", more of "ok so this weapon matters to my PC so I won't change"

tho preferably "this weapon works great with my build, but XYZ weapon(s) also can be good"

use a weapon because of a choice, rather than a math equation

.
But, back to ranged. I do think ammo variety can really help make the ranged combat style more engaging and interesting, though I feel like it'd need more of what you suggested in the video game inspiration; a reason to use the tools beyond "more damage". Enemies resistant to typical damage that are vulnerable to special arrows, arrows that are better at piercing specific environmental struggles, etc

and perhaps not "resistant" in the 5e use of the word, perhaps just crazy AC that is lower vs specific attacks

[white sparrow]

I basically regard Ranged ammunition as the midpoint between weapons and magic.

Stuff like lightning arrows will have clear usages, much like magic spells will, that interact with the environment more accessibly than weapons do, and have limited usages.

I would regard it as useful to gut cantrips for the most part, too.

[dawn robin]

by "gut" do you mean like, nerf range? Damage? Utility? All of the above?

I have certainly been on record complaining about their reliable damage kinda taking martial's niche, though I do like having a "default" option

[white sparrow]

I think that having them be able to do such a wide variety of things that are no-resource, is a detrimental thing, especially with you getting such a decent selection of cantrips. This becomes even worse with Tashas/2024 cantrip swappability.

A fire arrow, which you have 20 shots of and that's it for the dungeon, that's a different dynamic to usage of 4 Spell Slots that you can use burning hands. It's a midpoint vs the martial - who may at some point get a flametongue, but they probably can only carry a flametongue into the dungeon as their loadout.

But if they have a fire cantrip, then you're kind of a chump for using up an arrow.

[frank python]

Seconding Ashley, I really like Damage Reduction. Though it can be hard to implement with how widely 5e attack vary in power

[dawn robin]

I do think DR is like, the ideal form of Immunity. I do like the simplicity of resistance, but a level of Immunity that can be overcome with enough sheer power is very narratively satisfying

[frank python]

Yeah. And it automatically creates mechanics such as multiple weak attacks being better against squishy opponents, while requiring a single strong attack to deal with an armored foe

The downside is that you need fairly tight damage spreads in your system, so 5e doesn't really work, unless you make some pretty deep changes

[frank python]

Stupid idea: what if archers were the only ones who can miss?

So like, armor is DR, and AC comes only from being nimble or small or having a shield

[tidal heron]

true, arrows and bolts dont normally slide off armor, they kind of punch through it to some degree don't they?

unlike slashing/piercing melee stuff, which would normally slide around a bit when trying to get through armor without enough force

[dawn robin]

I also have been wanting to make BPS matter more, I honestly might do it with armor. Though I think Piercing would just be, the best? Maybe it can just deal less damage on average, but be the safe option

[dawn robin]

Damage types vs armor:

Unarmored: Bludgeoning =, Piercing -, Slashing +
Light: Bludgeoning -, Piercing =, Slashing =
Medium: Bludgeoning =, Piercing +, Slashing =
Heavy: Bludgeoning +, Piercing =, Slashing -

[tidal heron]

"+" means it gains a bonus to the damage, right?

[tidal heron]

the question is, how would melee get influenced then?

would it be just damage resistance and damage outright?

or would there be room for expression of stuff like a Block system (similar to card-based games where you can build Block as a pool of hitpoints) or parry/countering, etc. etc.

[dawn robin]

bonus, pierces resistance, higher effect, something to that effect

[frank python]

Well, they do. It's more like, you can miss with an arrow, but you don't miss with a sword if you're at all competent. Instead, your strike gets blocked or dodged

The thought came from the fact that a Fairy and an Ogre could reasonably have the same AC in 5e

[tidal heron]

that's fair

also made AC stacking too much of a thing

[dawn robin]

in realistic combat, ye, kinda. But in fantasy, people be doin dances around each other while they fight and miss a lot

[frank python]

Still, a dodgy dancer and a thick-skinned ogre are probably differently difficult for different weapons

[restive idol]

depends on the arrow/bolt and the armour.
vs full plate? your average broadhead will slide or bounce off and do nothing.
A bodkin striking straight on will punch through armour if it's the right weight + speed to do so, but if it's at an angle, it'll be deflected and slide off.
It's how a lot of modern hard armour works too - tank armour is sloped, because it makes incoming shells slide across the slope and bounce off.

[tidal heron]

Fair enough

[frank python]

Yeah, deflection is always better than stopping. It's why boobplate is genuinely a bad idea and not just goofy (not that people have never chosen style over function though)

[dawn robin]

Much more effective if doing boobplate in the PS1 Laura Croft style

[tidal heron]

Wait has Counterspelling been covered yet?

Just had a thought

Or is that to be fleshed out later

[dawn robin]

Not fully, current intent is to make it a wizard feature rather than a spell, and be less "absolute" in countering or not

[tidal heron]

So moreso "specific" and not "general"?

Wait then how will you handle other classes losing Counterspell?

[dawn robin]

What is there to handle?

[tidal heron]

Because that means if you want to be dealing with enemy spellcasters the best in terms of prep and countering then a wizard is the best option

Which kind of shoehorns party comp a bit

Maybe im just too out of it and making a big deal of nothing idk

[dawn robin]

When you deal with undead and fiends, paladins and clerics become the best option

when you deal with situations that require stealth and precision without preparation, rogue is the best option

I think each class should have scenes where they are excelling, Wizard is quite vague in its speciality beyond being, very generally useful. I think them being the anti-mage kinda fits their vibe

[tidal heron]

...yk what, that's fair

Class specialties to spice things back up is a good idea

[dawn robin]

gonna be a bit more quiet around here probably, job is getting very busy and draining for the next several weeks

[dawn robin]

A midnight thought hit me related to this thing, which is a core fighter feature similar to this

Imagine like, having a simple grid like this but for general use (not just archery), however moving around the grid requires specific actions

I'm uncertain what actions would do what, but like, "retreat/defensive actions" would move you down the grid, "advance/offensive actions" would move you up the grid, and something else does left/right.

With an important note being much of this movement relies on actual PC movement on the battlefield

makes the concept of pushing a foe back and moving up to continue to engage less about just pushing them because reasons when there isn't a pit, now pushing them advances your "stance"

[white sparrow]

Do you imagine it being alright for players to need to have it in front of them to do their play functions?

[dawn robin]

I imagine it more than alright, probably expected if not neccessary

its kinda game-y to be taking actions to advance a mechanical chess board of traits, however I think if the actions that cause movement and the features gained from the grid are well paired it could marry well

Being pushed back by a foe such that you can't get off powerful offensive moves is actually a solid vibe imo, similarly if you continue pressing the offense against a foe you cannot as easily take defensive or ranged actions

[frank python]

It's definitely something with a ton of potential if you can make it work well

[white sparrow]

Fwiw, entirely just asking to check your comfort on that yeah.

[dawn robin]

My comfort is uncertain as I haven't seen it in play

as I could totally despise it if it ends up feeling super metagamey (not metagame like knowing GM side stuff but like, literally a game within the game)

But... it could also help reinforce a central vibe for the Fighter

Someone who's a sorta... tactician. Trying to angle the fight in a certain way to get off their moves. I knocked this guy prone and pulled away from them because I've got a plan, don't worry guys I'm in stance A3

(I presume each space will have an actual name eventually not just chess grid spaces)

As an interesting concept too maybe, it could instead be plus-sign shaped (corners are empty), then subclasses can fill those corners. Might mean some subs flourish more with a defensive style, or a "rightward" style (whatever that eventually means)

[tidal heron]

Me when my battlemaster fighter party member starts playing chess on their Combat Board

No but in all honesty it seems cool

Makes it easier to track stance-based/combo style options

Which were originally more annoying to track and memorize

[dawn robin]

So I think, if I am to continue this train of thought, the first thing I need to figure out isn't the traits/features on the board, but instead how you move about it

these stance movement actions need a few things

• simplicity (easy to remember, not requiring a lot of reference text or brain space as you play)
• general use (events that are likely to come up or trigger in standard combats, not niche or requiring foolish/party issue moves like pushing a foe into your backline) but not TOO general use (as in, you constantly accidentally are moving around the stance board in a disruptive way that's annoying to track or actually plan around)
• evocative (gotta be more than just "move left by moving left on the battlemap", the movement on the stance board needs to feel impactful and purposeful)
• not too action heavy (if you have to Disengage or Dash to move around the stance board, that's quite a cost for a Fighter)

[tidal heron]

perhaps using a shapes-based system to denote pathways?

so circle into triangle into square for a combo

[tidal heron]

As for movement, maybe keep it relatively linear on a horizontal/vertical, with special movement to other spaces being limited to certain combo spaces?

And for what triggers movement, perhaps sacrificing an attack or two sometimes?

[dawn robin]

sacrificing attacks to shift would be simple and general use, but isn't very evocative and is quite action heavy for most of the game before tier 3/4

it could be that those actions are not just "spent" to move, but they do specific types of attacks to do the shift?

on a related note, I have decided my stance on compatibility and comparisons to 5e/5.5e. I seek for separate systems to still be mostly compatible, but am not forcing it. Also, I am considering my class rebuilds as an "Advanced" form of the base 5e/5.5e class, not advanced as in "better" but moreso more complex and nuanced. Goal is for it to be possible for 5e/5.5e/PH classes to all be played at the same table and nobody is OP, but a 5e Fighter and a PH Fighter would be somewhat distinct

[tidal heron]

sacrificing an attack to do a special attack type, like Whirlwind, makes sense (if that's what you mean)

[dawn robin]

How long until this devolves into Battlemaster but each maneuver also has a direction

[dawn robin]

Honestly... I could see it... Worst case I could use it as the new Battlemaster's thing

[tidal heron]

battlemaster could be a more in-depth evolution of the basic chart, with how its offshoots are treated

whereas other subclasses moreso have their own separate portion of the chart that flows a little separately from the main tree

[dawn robin]

Battlemaster turns it from a 3x3 to a 5x5

[tidal heron]

and all other subs enhance certain baseline moves?

or is it moreso something that champion does all-round, and the other subs add a singular row/column on one side?

so champion stays 3x3, most subs become 3x4 (maybe 3x5) and BM is 5x5

?

[dawn robin]

maybe

I might just want them to stay in the 3x3, but by default there's blank spots that the subs fill in

[tidal heron]

Will the FS also fill in the spots, or that's more its own separate thing?

[dawn robin]

I imagine it'd be separate, as other classes use em

but maybe fighter gets extra perks for each

[dawn robin]

Threw together a noise pattern thing, currently its not "smart" and just generates each space individually, but it seems promising as a potential random cover generation thing

[tidal heron]

will it be preset patterns, or will it be something like "X tile must be next to Y tile" so that people can set up their own tile flows (with example formats, ofc)?

[tidal heron]

maybe the FS' special moves (if any exist) can be triggered by using one of the basic moves in the 3x3 grid?

[dawn robin]

well, atm its just a noise pattern (basically, computer rolls dice for each tile to see how high it wants it to be), so there's no user input at all other than cycling through seeds. But maybe if I advance it, I'll let there be more options for specific presets? Or the ability to manually adjust the grid after it generates to fine tune

[dawn robin]

Maybe... I do think I wanna change how FS work but I don't think I'd want it to tie into this, a bit too complex to be a shared feature methinks

maybe if I can make it simple enough though? We shall see once my brain starts working again

[dawn robin]

So I'm thinking more about the Stance thing, and I'm realizing I probably need to make multiple stance charts

because like... it'd be weird if melee and ranged had the same stances

My worry is that this means every weapon "set" needs its own stance chart...

[novel patrol]

close enough. Welcome back dark souls

combo for each weapon

plus weapon arts

[dawn robin]

Common

melee+shield
melee+melee
2H ranged
2H melee (heavy)
2H melee (reach)
Rare
melee+empty (includes bare fists)
melee+ranged
ranged+shield

Is there any other set that really feels unique that a fighter would use?

I might be able to merge the two 2H melee's, in which case there'd only be 4 "common" styles

[restive idol]

I'd keep the 2H and 2H Reach - cos they are used / behave differently.
I'd argue you may want to include

1H ranged
Versatile
Speciality / Utility
Because 1h ranged is a distinct thing.
Versatile is a mix of 1H and 2H, with its own things often.
And then like, whips, hooks, nets + baby sneaks, trips, whatever for all the "edge cases" with special/utility

That said... you could probably split it overall like:
Melee:

1H
1H+ (This can include melee + ranged, and melee + shield options)
2H (This has sub-sets for "normal" and "reach" options)
Unarmed (or include it in 1H+)

Ranged:

1H
2H

Other:

Speciality / Utility
Defence focused.
Anything else

[dawn robin]

IDK if I can do that, 1H+ would be very different for each type... like I would want moves that do specific things and TWF vs Melee + shield are quite different

[restive idol]

fair, but hopefully that says which bits I think would be important at least xD

[dawn robin]

Common

melee+shield
melee+melee (TWF)
ranged (2H or 1H+empty/shield)
2H melee (heavy/reach in one, each favors a specific side of the stance?)
Rare
melee+empty (includes bare fists or shield+empty)
melee+ranged (hand xbow or thrown + one handed)
ranged+shield
ranged+ranged (akimbo)

[tidal heron]

Will there be 3-4 filled-in positions on the tiles at the start, and then you fill out more as you level up?

Just to confirm (using an arbitrary but reasonably low number)

[dawn robin]

Perchance

[frank python]

Though about this. Perhaps instead of stances/strict, it should be momentum/loose. So maybe if I swing my sword in a wide arc, I gain some momentum towards the top of the board, and that makes certain follow-up moves stronger - but they were always available anyway

Or, alternatively, I can always do things from anywhere on the board, but if I do things that are close/connected, I gain momentum which makes me generally stronger

[dawn robin]

It could be some of both, sorta like the image I had sent here it has moves that you can take at any time (underlined), otherwise you move to nearby moves at will but you can't go diagonal or jump gaps

even a 3x3 grid, you only have access to the center or up/down/left/right restricts 4 moves in every position

[frank python]

Yeah but like, instead of a hard restriction, it could be an incremental bonus that you can try to keep up

[tidal heron]

melee + empty including bare fists means monk will be getting this grid as well, just to confirm?

random thought

[dawn robin]

no, but a pugalist style fighter might. This is (at least atm) intended to be a Fighter feature, not a thing that applies to all FS/Mastery/etc.

If it turns out to be really simple and intuitive to use, I could see expanding it to more martials. But Monk would really only have the TWF style available so quite narrow

[tidal heron]

will a truncated system be applied to other martials and the half-martials (ranger and paladin), or will something else be done in those cases then?

[dawn robin]

I think they'll have their own thing entirely separate from this, I (currently) want this to be a Fighter exclusive thing to help them be more unique

[dawn robin]

#quick_questions message
Made a poll for a symbol question on the Stance thing I'm working on

[dawn robin]

Experiment 1

Context for use

Some notes from myself

• I think its still too complex atm, and not very intuitive
• I think the chart could probably be simplified a lot, unsure how I wanna display it yet
• I think its interesting, and might lead to interesting gameplay, but I'd have to test it to really get a feel
• I might wanna make it such that each Stance is only a single effect, but its difficult making an effect that isn't giving Fighter too much strength (its already strong) or something so niche that nobody will ever use the stance

I also currently do not have any "stance changing events" as I had theorized before, I realized I may not want this stance thing to be so encompassing as to draw much focus from the player to maintain, so wanted to simplify

[tidal heron]

Disengaging is quite strong purely because it doesnt seem action-tied per se, would removing the "Defensive" portion and tying "Disengaging Shot" to taking the Disengage action be too much?

[tidal heron]

this is meant to be more complex than baseline to a certain degree, so there's bound to be a slight learning curve imo

[dawn robin]

So the idea is that since you plan this a turn in advance (swap stance at end of turn to this), you make the disengaging shot before your next turn to get some distance and when you run any other targets that can reach you other than your main target can't hit you as well. But, the CQC shot is still at Disadvantage, so its not guarenteed you even ignore the triggering creature's OA.

The bigger cost is you don't really get anything beneficial on your turn beyond disadvantage OA's, which isn't guarenteed to keep you safe

do you think its still too powerful, even though its more mitigating rather than empowering?