[5e] GnomeWorks Homebrew Classes

[GnomeWorks]

Beam \ Role	Adept	Defender	Expert	Petmaster	Racial	Spark	Specialist	Support	Warrior
Arcane	Jack	Arbiter	Princess	Summoner	Arcantrix	Mage	Artificer	Bard	Runeblade
Psionics	Jedi	Cenobite	Idealist	Gestalt	Zoanthrope	Psychic	Erudite	Ardent	Monk
Technology	Gunbreaker	Ironman	Detective	Rigger	Tron	Engineer	Borg	Sage	Gunslinger
Divine	Avenger	Paladin	Rector	Inheritor	Vindicator	Invoker	Seeker	Priest	Judge
Void	Samurai	Hollow	Assassin	Binder	Yogi	Voidchild	Vampire	Zen	Reaper
Primal	Hunter	Warden	Ranger	Caller	Cultivator	Druid	Witch	Shaman	Shifter
Time	Harrier	Templar	Calculator	Astrologer	Xelor	Epochent	Nomad	Kismet	Zephyr
Chaos	Juggernaut	Quixotic	Jester	Iconoclast	Trickster	Anarch	Factotum	Gambler	Discordant
Memory	Mimic	Uplink	Scholar	Echo	Doppelganger	Akashic	Learner	Cypher	Unfettered

It's been a few years. I've been working on stuff. Links are only to things I'm alright with sharing at the moment: a good number more of these are in some state of completion, just not ready for public viewing.

Read "beam" as "power source."

Each link is a link to a pdf doc with that class; some may have a bit more info than others. Each beam link is a link to a pdf with that beam's power list.

Some classes will be less complete than others; some are in a state of flux; others are relatively new additions; others are old and in need of revision.

To give some context for what each of the roles means:

• Adept is a ToB-inspired class with a beam-flavored gimmick.
• Defender is what you'd expect, all of them have d12 hit dice and explicitly have various protection and/or aggro abilities, along with a paladin smite equivalent. All are half-casters but don't get cantrips.
• Expert is a skill monkey with some flavor appropriate to their beam thrown in. This lets me justify giving them actual class features at high level that let them hang out with the casters.
• Support has a core healing ability that looks like a paladin's lay on hands on crack, along with cantrips and a half-casting progression. They're more like 4e leaders in that they do a bunch of other stuff on top of healing.
• Petmaster is sufficiently distinct in my mind to warrant a separate role, because the approach to action economy in 5e is fucked in regards to having pets so they need more specific class design. They get cantrips.
• Racial are a set of classes specific to each beam-aligned race in my homebrew setting; it's possible/probable that some could be translated elsewhere. They're effectively not-quite-full-casters but with a gimmick.
• Spark is the in-setting term for casters in my setting, so it got stuck here because "caster" is magic and the other eight beams explicitly are not magical. Sparks have full casting and almost all if not all their class features relate to making their casting better.
• Specialist are classes that go all-in on a particular gimmick. As an example, artificers here are not casters by default, instead focusing completely and utterly on magic items. They can get half-casting via a subclass.
• Warrior is exactly what it says on the tin, a complete non-casting fighter-type that has flavor of the beam thrown in. Again, this is intended to justify me giving them caster-like abilities at higher levels so they can maybe stay relevant.

I'm looking for feedback on whatever suits your fancy. I am not interested in bringing politics into this, nor am I particularly interested in the sort of caustic responses typical around here -- harsh on my decisions all you like (preferably productively), but keep the personal out of it.

[deaddmwalking]

This looks interesting and I'll try to read through some links tomorrow.

I'm not sure that you can get away with Jedi as a class name. I'm not sure what other names you've considered and rejected, or what the criteria is (like similarity to existing classes), but maybe Mystic or Sensei?

I know Sensei literally means teacher, but that doesn't mean it can't cover the thematic area that jedi does.

[GnomeWorks]

This looks interesting and I'll try to read through some links tomorrow.

Appreciated.

I'm not sure that you can get away with Jedi as a class name.

If I were selling something, it'd be a problem, I concur. As it is, the mouse can kiss my ass.

That said I'm not opposed to figuring out a less-obviously-stolen name.

[deaddmwalking]

With just a look at two of the links, it's obvious you put a lot of work into this, and it seems really promising. With so much content I think I'm going to ask some clarifying questions as I read through it.

First question - in the arcane spell list, most spells are given a type like acanthus or obrimos. It looks to me like obrimos is evocation, and mastigos is conjuration/illusion, and moros is necromancy. Am I on the right track? I didn't see anything that connects to these tags when looking at the Arbiter, but I took a quick peek at the Mage and I see that they matter when choosing a concentration (Arcane Leys).

I see that a mage can choose to spend mana before casting a spell to avoid the possibility of backlash. Arbiters have mana, too, but it looks like they can't choose to spend it to avoid a mishap - they always roll and only spend mana on a mishap. Is that what is intended?

On the spell backlash table, what does it mean to lose a HD? Since the arbiter gets spells starting at 2nd level, losing a HD at first level isn't possible for them. But it does appear that a Mage could. What would happen in that case?

For a mage, it is clear that they can learn 5th level spells at 13th level. But it's not clear how that works. The 'spell level' column only goes to 4th level, and the normal spell learning rules say 'The Spells Known column of the Mage table shows when you learn more spells of your choice of 1st level or higher. A spell you choose must be of a level no higher than what's shown in the table's Spell Level column for your level.' That caps out at 4th. 'Additionally, when you gain a level in this class, you can choose one of the spells you know and replace it with another spell from the spell list, which also must be of a level equal to or lower than the level in the Spell Level column for that level.' All that seems to imply that you can never choose a 5th or 6th level spell, ever.

At 13th level you gain the Arcane Mystery (5th) where it says 'When you gain new spells known, you can learn 5th level spells'. Since I gain a new spell known, it sounds like I could choose a 5th level spell, essentially disregarding the 'general rule' as presented originally. Likewise, since I've gained a level I could replace one spell I already know, so at 13th level I could know two 5th level spells among the 10 I already know. When I gain another level, is it intended that I could once again replace a spell known with a 5th level spell? Again, the 13th level ability isn't really clear about how it interacts with the base rule quoted above.

It appears that no matter how many 5th (or 6th) level spells you know, you can cast 1 5th level spell and 1 6th level spell (or two 5th level spells and no 6th level spells) per long rest. The Spell Backlash table doesn't have an entry for 5th or 6th level spells (but it does have an entry if that's the highest level spell you can cast), so it looks like those are never cast as 'normal spells' with the choice of spending mana to avoid backlash.

Does that all track and is in line with what you intended? Maybe updating the table to show 5th/6th level as your highest Spell Level would avoid any ambiguity.

[GnomeWorks]

With so much content I think I'm going to ask some clarifying questions as I read through it.

Sure. Part of the goal here is that everything makes sense to someone without me around to step in and explain things.

First question - in the arcane spell list, most spells are given a type like acanthus or obrimos. It looks to me like obrimos is evocation, and mastigos is conjuration/illusion, and moros is necromancy. Am I on the right track? I didn't see anything that connects to these tags when looking at the Arbiter, but I took a quick peek at the Mage and I see that they matter when choosing a concentration (Arcane Leys).

They are full replacements for core magic schools. For a number of reasons, I decided that eight schools of any given power source were too many, and reduced it to five for each, including magic.

I may be walking that back and going back to eight per power source, so the core D&D schools would see a return eventually, but that adjustment is very much on the back-burner for now.

I see that a mage can choose to spend mana before casting a spell to avoid the possibility of backlash. Arbiters have mana, too, but it looks like they can't choose to spend it to avoid a mishap - they always roll and only spend mana on a mishap. Is that what is intended?

There were a lot of adjustments made to the various casting systems over the years, minor tweaks and what-not, so it's possible each class has slight variations on how their casting works.

It is intended that anyone who uses mana can spend mana when casting a spell to avoid the backlash roll; likewise, if a backlash roll is failed, that always eats 1 mana.

On the spell backlash table, what does it mean to lose a HD? Since the arbiter gets spells starting at 2nd level, losing a HD at first level isn't possible for them. But it does appear that a Mage could. What would happen in that case?

It means that you lose HD, just like you would lose hit points. I don't think there's anything in core about negative effects at 0 HD, so if you have none, then... nothing happens if you get that result, I suppose, which is probably an oversight that needs fixing.

Arbiters can't cast spells at 1st level, so can't suffer backlash.

A mage at 1st level who suffers backlash that causes loss of HD would lose their HD.

Remember that in 5e, HD are effectively 4e healing surges -- they're an out-of-combat healing resource. This isn't meant to cause permanent HP loss or anything like that.

For a mage, it is clear that they can learn 5th level spells at 13th level. But it's not clear how that works. The 'spell level' column only goes to 4th level, and the normal spell learning rules say 'The Spells Known column of the Mage table shows when you learn more spells of your choice of 1st level or higher. A spell you choose must be of a level no higher than what's shown in the table's Spell Level column for your level.' That caps out at 4th. 'Additionally, when you gain a level in this class, you can choose one of the spells you know and replace it with another spell from the spell list, which also must be of a level equal to or lower than the level in the Spell Level column for that level.' All that seems to imply that you can never choose a 5th or 6th level spell, ever.

There are a couple things going on here.

First, I reduced power levels for all power sources from 9 to 6, because I felt 9 was too granular.

Second, note that my casting systems all allow for potentially-infinite casting: forex, a 1st level mage could theoretically just keep casting 1st level spells if they don't fail too many backlash checks. Compare to core, where you have X spell slots, and when you're done, you're done.

In order to keep some parity with core, wherein higher-level spell slots are considerably rarer, I decided to rob warlock's corpse and use their mystic arcanum feature as a template for how I handle higher-level powers: 4th-level powers and lower use whatever your resource mechanic is, whereas 5th and 6th use slots.

The max power level known column for spark classes generally caps out at 4th, and they gain specific features (which you get to, and we'll get to, so hold your horses) that give them differently-silo'd access to 5th and 6th level powers.

The intent is to try to both gate and limit how many 5th and 6th level powers a character knows, because you're a lot more limited in how often you can use them, so having a bunch on your power list is something I want to avoid.

At 13th level you gain the Arcane Mystery (5th) where it says 'When you gain new spells known, you can learn 5th level spells'. Since I gain a new spell known, it sounds like I could choose a 5th level spell, essentially disregarding the 'general rule' as presented originally. Likewise, since I've gained a level I could replace one spell I already know, so at 13th level I could know two 5th level spells among the 10 I already know. When I gain another level, is it intended that I could once again replace a spell known with a 5th level spell? Again, the 13th level ability isn't really clear about how it interacts with the base rule quoted above.

I'll agree this isn't clear, which is why I think at some point I decided that having the "max power level" column max out at 4th was a bit misleading (it also has the issue of being unclear about whether or not you can upcast lower-level powers to those levels).

Casting said high-level spells intentionally breaks from the established resource mechanic. This is true for all power sources.

It appears that no matter how many 5th (or 6th) level spells you know, you can cast 1 5th level spell and 1 6th level spell (or two 5th level spells and no 6th level spells) per long rest. The Spell Backlash table doesn't have an entry for 5th or 6th level spells (but it does have an entry if that's the highest level spell you can cast), so it looks like those are never cast as 'normal spells' with the choice of spending mana to avoid backlash.

Correct, 5th and 6th level powers are more limited because in core 5e, full casters are very restricted in terms of higher level spell slots, so I tried to maintain that in the face of different, less-restrictive resource management mechs.

Having access to those levels of power makes using lower-level ones easier, though, which is why the arcane backlash die table has entries for casting lower-level spells when you have access to 5th and 6th level.

Does that all track and is in line with what you intended? Maybe updating the table to show 5th/6th level as your highest Spell Level would avoid any ambiguity.

I'm pretty sure I decided -- somewhat recently -- that this was the right call, to help avoid the kind of ambiguities you've brought up. It just hasn't propagated across all my docs.

[deaddmwalking]

Are there scrolls or other ways besides directly casting them that classes would have access to higher level spells? Is an Arbiter forever banned from ever casting 5th/6th level spells?

In my mind, it's a real question of whether some of the higher level spells offer enough additional benefit over lower level spells to justify taking them. Compare fireball (3rd) and chain lightning (4th). With the first I can hit every target within a 40' diameter circle; with the other I can hit 4 targets within a 60' diameter circle centered on one target; with fireball it's 8d6 (28 avg), with chain lightning it's 10d8 (44 avg). Being able to target it where your friends are intermingled with the enemies could be a real advantage.

That's the long way of saying that things like that really do need play-testing. My gut says playing an Arbiter at 9th level would be more fun than playing a Mage at 9th level, but at 15th level I think the Mage is probably more fun. I'd probably assume that games won't usually get that far, so if I was starting from 1st level I might never play a mage. I expect to have more thoughts about relative appeal of classes after comparing more of them.

[deaddmwalking]

The Fakemon are cute. The capture summon ability is incomplete; it says to double the number of dice rolled for every level after 1st, but it never says that the initial 3d6 is for being first level. Is it supposed to be 6d6 at 2nd? 9d6 or 12d6 at 3rd? Or does that mean that if they're bloodied I roll 4d6 instead of 2d6 additional dice?

I do see that Summoners without spell casting can still cast this spell, so that's good.

The CR progression you can summon seems like it falls behind as you advance, but some of the fakemon look freakin' scary - I wouldn't be surprised if Volcaroc CR 3 could do a number on PCs of 6th level. I don't see any CR 12 Fakemon - that'd be good to include since eventually that's an option. Heck, I'd make sure there were sample creatures of every CR - there's a pretty good mix but I didn't check for every level.

[GnomeWorks]

Are there scrolls or other ways besides directly casting them that classes would have access to higher level spells?

I haven't particularly given much thought to spell-replication items -- I think scrolls exist in 5e, but they're rarely discussed, and because of how my setting works I generally nix them in loot when I'm running games.

That said, I'm not sure how I feel about them. I can see their utility, but then we run into versimilitude issues and things like "why bother having a rogue when you can just buy a wand of knock" and so forth.

As a general rule, I think the higher-level powers are going to be off-limits to any kind of spell-replication items, though.

Is an Arbiter forever banned from ever casting 5th/6th level spells?

Yep.

Just like any non-Arbiter is "forever banned" from having Arbiter class features.

In my mind, it's a real question of whether some of the higher level spells offer enough additional benefit over lower level spells to justify taking them. Compare fireball (3rd) and chain lightning (4th).

Those spells are literally lifted from the 5e SRD...

That's the long way of saying that things like that really do need play-testing.

...and yeah, I'll definitely agree that there are probably a lot of stupid bullshit numbers in core 5e, which will similarly filter down to my numbers probably being stupid bullshit because I'm patterning off of what's there.

Playtesting would absolutely be helpful. So is feedback. That's why we're here.

My gut says playing an Arbiter at 9th level would be more fun than playing a Mage at 9th level, but at 15th level I think the Mage is probably more fun.

I mean, that's pretty subjective, but fair enough.

I'd probably assume that games won't usually get that far, so if I was starting from 1st level I might never play a mage. I expect to have more thoughts about relative appeal of classes after comparing more of them.

Given the sheer quantity of classes we're talking about, I fully expect that for any given person, some will speak to you more than others -- flavor, role, power source, even particular gimmicks may play a factor in that.

The Fakemon are cute.

Some of the art is less than ideal, but yeah, they did a pretty solid job overall.

The capture summon ability is incomplete; it says to double the number of dice rolled for every level after 1st, but it never says that the initial 3d6 is for being first level.

I think you're reading it funny. The spell has a whole paragraph about how many dice you roll; then, (double the number of dice you roll) for (each level above 1st).

Is it supposed to be 6d6 at 2nd? 9d6 or 12d6 at 3rd? Or does that mean that if they're bloodied I roll 4d6 instead of 2d6 additional dice?

This I will grant is possibly poor grammatical choices on my part, and my vague attempt at replicating pokemon catch math without getting bogged down into the minutiae of it.

The intent is: once you calculate out how many dice you're rolling per the base math, THEN for each level above 1st you're casting it at, double that number.

So baseline, yes, at 2nd level it would be 6d6. It would then be 12d6 at 3rd, 24d6 at 4th, and so on.

If the target is bloodied, then at 2nd it would be 10d6, then 20d6 at 3rd, 40d6 at 4th, and so on.

...wow those numbers get out of hand fast, I forgot how stupid doubling gets. That may need adjusting down a touch, but high-level 5e monsters are absurd punching bags, so it might still make sense.

I do see that Summoners without spell casting can still cast this spell, so that's good.

Gotta catch 'em all.

This spell is a relatively new addition, it didn't exist in earlier iterations -- it was added because I realized that with the restrictions/limitations on when you can replace prior summons, you'll wind up with a stable full of critters that are considerably under par for your level (though you should always have at least a couple that are viable). Not every game will feature catchable critters -- that's why you can just replace them as you level -- but having the option is important.

The CR progression you can summon seems like it falls behind as you advance, but some of the fakemon look freakin' scary

Which is why the CR progression isn't falling behind as you advance, if anything it might be too fast. But then I think attempting to balance anything too seriously after 16th or so is a fool's errand, so -- go ham, it's probably fine.

In playtesting -- summoner has seen from 3rd to ~9th, so far -- it's worked out just fine.

I don't see any CR 12 Fakemon - that'd be good to include since eventually that's an option. Heck, I'd make sure there were sample creatures of every CR - there's a pretty good mix but I didn't check for every level.

The fakemon list is an incomplete work in progress. Here's the main list I'm working from.

Here are more that I allow and use, and hint strongly in the sidebar that people look for this and use it when using summoner. In fact, this conversion is why the summoner caps out at CR 12: charizard is their capstone.

Machoke is scary.

[deaddmwalking]

I like the Runeblade with the various options. So far I think that multiple classes (and variants) would be fun to play. Gish might be my go-to to become familiar with how all the spell lists work. Having a large number of classes definitely creates complexity around what a viable party looks like. I'll probably look at Divine Classes next, maybe early next week. I've gotta finish magnetizing my Hekaton Land Fortress.

[GnomeWorks]

Having a large number of classes definitely creates complexity around what a viable party looks like.

With the understanding that some things have changed dramatically over the years, the following group compositions have been tried:

• Success -- Fateless Hollow, Automind Rigger, Mystic Monk, Arcane Trickster Rogue (before I'd nixed rogues), Blackjack Gambler
• TPK -- [deprecated Primal warrior], Hash Cypher, [deprecated Memory warrior], Telepathy Psychic
• Success -- [deprecated Divine defender], Blackjack Gambler, [deprecated Memory warrior], Intercessor Gestalt, Telepathy Psychic
• Success -- Gadgeteer Detective, Devotion Paladin, Karateka Monk, Mastigos Mage
• On Hiatus -- Iron Fortress Cenobite, Occultist Summoner, Restoration Shaman, Expeditious Zephyr, Tempus Epochent

I'll probably look at Divine Classes next, maybe early next week.

Heh, the whole one I've got up there? Divine has had some hardcore identity problems, alongside Memory, which is why they're the two most underdeveloped of the power sources.

[deaddmwalking]

I guess it's worth a look sooner, then.

So with divine spells including things like Healing Word (effectively cure light wounds), giving the Paladin basically three 1st level prayers (spells) out of 25 possible choices probably means that they're not going to be doing much healing. My thought is that healing should generally be more available. None of the Oaths available to the Paladin support a healing role, which seems kinda surprising.

The Paladin class isn't one that I'd want to play, even though it's an archetype I usually like. The Resolve metric seems like it's supposed to be an important component of the class, but ultimately it just means that you take whatever damage you're supposed to take 1 round later. If the damage you're taking wouldn't cause you any problems, it's just extra book-keeping. If it would cause you problems, it's effectively just a delay before you have to deal with them. That feels like extra bookkeeping for very little benefit. Die Hard and Final Stand are 'abilities', but they're the kind that you never actually want to use. I'm not saying they're not helpful, but since the only apply when you're already in deep kimchee, I'd hope they do more. Getting to make saves at an increasing by +5 DC to not die isn't real assuring. I'm really surprised that they're not able to ignore conditions that are damage riders.

Retribution seems like the worst choice for fighting style - it doesn't really discourage your opponents from attacking your friends - getting advantage against them only matters if you have an attack you can apply, you don't already have advantage for another reason, and that you need advantage to hit. If you choose Devotion as your oath, getting a bonus of Charisma to attack rolls probably means you're hitting anyway. With a maximum of 5 patience at 20th level, smite attacks just don't seem that scary. At 7th level you can do an extra +3d8 damage once at the cost of losing access to all spells until a rest? Just doesn't seem worthwhile.

All of the abilities just feel like they do too little at too high a level. Giving your allies a bonus on saving throws is nice; but within 10'? The way we do combat, even if we INTEND to stay close to each other, that almost never happens. That said, positioning is a lot different in the way we play, so maybe your experience is that your PCs are always close. The ability to gain Proficiency on Str and Wisdom saving throws at 15th level seems like something that should have come much, much earlier, or should be much, much better.

I've never been a fan of how clerics have access to the full spell list, but this might be a class that would benefit from having access to all prayers (spells) of the appropriate level. They're not casting them that many times between rests, so having more options seems like it would be fun but not overly powerful. I think the whole Resolve system should be handled differently. Here's my suggestion:

Resolve: You have a number of points of resolve equal to your Paladin level. Every turn, as a reaction, you can spend 1 or more resolve for the following effects (1 resolve per choice):
-Ignore one status condition for the round. You may spend additional resolve to ignore multiple effects.
-Delay applying damage for 1 round. A maximum of 10 points of damage per Paladin level may be delayed. A paladin can delay it multiple rounds by spending resolve each round provided the total damage delayed is less than the the maximum. Any damage exceeding the maximum is applied immediately.
-Reduce damage from one attack by Paladin level + Charisma modifier
-Heal 1d8+Charisma modifier damage. This can be applied to the Paladin's current hit point total, or used to reduce delayed damage prior to applying it.

I think that gets at those core functions and doesn't seem abusable.

I still feel like the Radiance damage that marked opponents take when they attack your allies is too small to care about, so finding a way to increase that or make it meaningful seems worthwhile.

[GnomeWorks]

<lots of words about paladin>

...you know, you make a number of decent points, and one of the few counterarguments I had isn't supported by the lookup I did earlier.

I think the one big thing I'd wanted to push back against was the notion that "hey don't die" features aren't really features, because core does it, so why can't I -- but then I realized that's a hilariously stupid position to hold, just because WotC does something silly doesn't mean I should hold myself to that. So yeah, I'll be keeping those around, but I think I'll be treating them as flavor, not real features (so either filler on levels where they get meaningful non-feature upgrades, or alongside something actually useful).

This leads pretty strongly to the notion that all of the tanks will need touching up -- possibly not uplink, but that's because it's fucking weird, and because I haven't gotten to its subs yet, it doesn't necessarily fall prey to some of the issues you've brought up with paladin.

I'll leave the links to the defender classes there, with the understanding that until I mention otherwise, they're all due for some heavy editing... if you do take a gander at them in the interim, feel free to leave commentary on what you think should change, but I don't think a deep dive into them would be necessary.

[deaddmwalking]

Well, I'll take a quick look, then.

I had looked at the Arbiter before, and it doesn't seem so bad. Automatic spell interruption, spells from the wizard list, and relatively reliable abilities to reduce damage to your allies actually seems like a decent package. I would be willing to play this class, which is definitely not my reaction to the Paladin.

Cenobite has psionic powers, but the psionic power list isn't available. I like ki more than qi, but that's a choice that you get to make. I'm surprised they get shields at all - I would expect them to do some type of psychic shield rather than a physical barrier, especially given the text of Harmonic Defense*. Maybe that's just because I picture the guy from Hellraiser and I don't think of him using a shield. I'll admit to not having watched the movies. Based on the description abilities like brawler seem like they ought to be an extra unarmed attack rather than only when missing with your other attack(s). I'm not a fan of Convergent fist - there are already a lot of penalties for fighting unarmed, and making your bad life choice slightly less bad but sill worse than using any other weapon at all leads players to make that bad choice. If you want them to be awesome with their fists, don't be afraid to make them awesome. For similar reason the Unseen Hand should allow a thunder punch in addition to the actions listed. *more on harmonic defense - you're allowed to wear armor, and this ability works if you're wearing armor. Is it possible that your defense would be LOWER with this ability? I know you're getting two attribute bonuses, but knowing that it's really hard to have multiple high abilities, that doesn't seem so hot. Is it really too much just to give you a bonus to AC equal to INT? I mostly like the Iron Fortress abilities, and if I played a cenobite, that's probably what I'd choose for my Dogan. It looks like if you choose not to spend qi on manifesting a psychic power, it doesn't cost you qi, but the psychic strain rolls are brutal, and long-term madness seems pretty sucky. Having such small amounts of qi means that you really cant use your abilities very often, and the gambling nature of it can be frustrating for a lot of players. Should I spend 6 ki to be 100% certain to ignore an attack, or is it better to spend 1 ki 6 times and on average block at least 1 but maybe 2 or even 3 if I'm lucky? Maybe it depends on how much damage, but that's not something you can do very much. I'd prefer abilities that you can count on a little more.

Ironman seems like a cool concept. Abilities like Arsenal bother me a little. Why can't you take all 3? You certainly can't use all three at the same time. The thing is, with a max level of 4 (assuming you spent the maximum upkeep) the damage is too small to matter. Sometimes it's good to get a choice, but other times it's better to give people more options. This class seems like more options at 2nd level would be fun, and since you have to make a choice about fighting style it would make it less punitive.

Hollow is a cool concept. If you choose bodiless, you will definitely dump your physical stats - it doesn't cost you anything until 18th level, really. Getting like 3 temporary hit points and getting an ability that lasts only until those are gone is pretty weak. Is necrotic damage worse than normal damage? Why would you want to do half as much damage even if it's a different type? This is a dark, dark, class, but I like it.

I think Templar is a cool concept. Having two versions of your character and getting to choose which one is 'real' has legs. If you're spending some time revamping defenders, I can foresee a lot of options to develop that more.

Uplink doesn't seem to fit in with the rest of the metaphysics of the world, and I know there's a lot you planned to develop. I think it's an interesting concept, but if you don't have any more classes that rely on Memory, it might be better to release in a Matrix style splat recognizing people that can alter reality... I'd still probably make it appear less computer-themed - use all of that as inspiration, but dress it in a fantasy cloak.

[GnomeWorks]

Well, I'll take a quick look, then.

The more useful feedback, the better, ye.

I had looked at the Arbiter before, and it doesn't seem so bad. Automatic spell interruption, spells from the wizard list, and relatively reliable abilities to reduce damage to your allies actually seems like a decent package. I would be willing to play this class, which is definitely not my reaction to the Paladin.

At the moment the main waffling I have with arbiter is the shielding others mech, I'm not entirely happy with it, but good to know that the overall thing going on with it sounds good.

Cenobite has psionic powers, but the psionic power list isn't available.

The psionic discipline list isn't available because for now I'm stealing it wholesale from someone else's homebrew and just haven't been bothered to translate it to my docs.

I like ki more than qi, but that's a choice that you get to make.

In my brainpan, "ki" has too much direct association with monk -- while my monk is psionic, I didn't want to keep that association too strongly, hence the alternative spelling.

<cenobite stuff>

Cenobite has been on the board for revision for awhile now. They're intended to have a "monk but tank" flavor, which almost necessitates that they be decent at unarmed and generally forego armor. Which they don't, right now, so past-me did a terrible job at getting the class fantasy across.

Ironman seems like a cool concept.

Cutting your thoughts short here because I generally concur with them -- this is like the third take, and I wasn't happy with it when I put it down, and I'm not happy with it now. Part of it is that I'm not entirely clear on how to accomplish the class fantasy, I think: it's just a matter of sitting down and letting my brainpan percolate on it.

Hollow is a cool concept. If you choose bodiless, you will definitely dump your physical stats - it doesn't cost you anything until 18th level, really. Getting like 3 temporary hit points and getting an ability that lasts only until those are gone is pretty weak. Is necrotic damage worse than normal damage? Why would you want to do half as much damage even if it's a different type? This is a dark, dark, class, but I like it.

Void classes tend to be, uh, "dark" in flavor, ye.

As for bodiless issues -- hollow suffers from having been one of the first few classes I wrote for 5e, and my desire to not overly rock the boat shows, I think. It definitely could use another pass.

I think Templar is a cool concept. Having two versions of your character and getting to choose which one is 'real' has legs. If you're spending some time revamping defenders, I can foresee a lot of options to develop that more.

I think one of my concerns there would be the cheese potential -- there's probably all kinds of shit that you can break if I'm not careful with the divergence feature, which is probably while it feels a bit played safe.

Uplink doesn't seem to fit in with the rest of the metaphysics of the world, and I know there's a lot you planned to develop. I think it's an interesting concept, but if you don't have any more classes that rely on Memory, it might be better to release in a Matrix style splat recognizing people that can alter reality... I'd still probably make it appear less computer-themed - use all of that as inspiration, but dress it in a fantasy cloak.

It absolutely fits in with the metaphysics of the setting, it's just a bit more obvious than other classes in Memory about what it's doing. As for other classes -- it's the only one that was in anything resembling a state I'm fine with sharing here, it is by no means intended to be the only one using that power source.

[deaddmwalking]

It absolutely fits in with the metaphysics of the setting, it's just a bit more obvious than other classes in Memory about what it's doing. As for other classes -- it's the only one that was in anything resembling a state I'm fine with sharing here, it is by no means intended to be the only one using that power source.

I was in a bit of a rush to finish my post yesterday, and based on your reply I think I ought to explain myself a little better.

The one thing that every game needs is verisimilitude - the idea that the game world is real for the characters. Revealing that the players around the table are the ACTUAL real world isn't clever - it's game destroying. While it's TRUE that our reality is real and the game is fantasy, saying that part out loud ruins the fun. There's nothing to be had in having a +12 hackmaster if the effort to earn it meant nothing.

Now, a character having the ability to change reality on the fly isn't game breaking - in fantasy, it's expected. You can get a lot of mileage out of 'its magic' to keep people's brains from breaking. You get less latitude if you bring in specifically sci-fi elements. Even more so if you attack the reality of the game settings and hint that there's a REAL reality deeper in that the players aren't part of. Essentially, you're saying 'they're not real' just as effectively as if you made the game about your players psychically inhabiting the bodies of their characters and hijacking their consciousness and running around in their Avatar.

It's one thing if you're Neo and you can enter the Matrix; it's another if you're IN THE MATRIX and you're the only one who can leave.

I've recently mentioned that my favorite computer game growing up was Might and Magic I: Secret of the Inner Sanctum. You wandered around a first-person world of soaring mountains, impenetrable forests, oceans filled with volcanic isles - a pretty vast fantasy world filled with towns and dungeons, demons and dragons. Eventually, you're supposed to learn that the entire fantasy world, Varn, exists only aboard a space ship and that VARN means Vehicular Astropod Research Nacelle is universally decried as the worst part of the game.

Basically, if you're IN a simulated reality (and you are in every single RPG, ever), suggesting that you're ACTUALLY IN A SIMULATED REALITY is bad, even if it's a DIFFERENT simulated reality than the one you think of. The first rule, ever, has to be don't attack the underlying reality of the game world unless you're going full on parody and Black Sabbath and the Harlem Globe Trotters are making guest appearances.

Okay, enough on that. You're free to disagree, but don't let it be said that I can't articulate my opposition.

Okay, back to reading the classes. I think that comparing them by role probably makes more sense than by power source, so that's what I'll do going forward.

Though I'm really surprised that nobody else has weighed in. I know there are people who play 5e here, and I would think that some of this would really appeal to them.

[deaddmwalking]

On the subject of formatting, I think that the three paragraphs of character stories that begin each class should be divided better. After reading a few of them you know that you're jumping from one person to another, but that's not normally how paragraphs work.

Experts

Detective
I've read all the Sherlock Holmes stories and I enjoy watching (mainly British) mystery shows like Father Brown and Foyle's War. I'm also a fan of noir detectives like Humphrey Bogart - and I like the Star Trek episodes where Picard or Data play detective in a fantasy world. So I'm pre-disposed to like the idea of a detective class. Giving them Sneak Attack is almost certainly a good thing - if they solve the crime they may actually have to subdue the criminal. But after that, we have to look at the actual paradox of the class - rolling 'Investigate' checks to get information from the GM reinforces the separation of character and player, but the kind of player who likes solving mysteries wants to actually put the pieces together, rather than making a few d20 rolls and getting the solution. I don't know what normal DCs are, but if rolling an 8 would be a failure, then treating a 1-7 as an 8 isn't very helpful. From a GM perspective, abilities like that are really hard to work around. Should you set the DC at 15, knowing that they have a class ability that means they can't fail? Or should you set it at 20 meaning that they need to roll a 12 or better. For those kinds of reasons, I would prefer something where they can 'take a closer look' and roll again, or even just advantage on those checks (obviously that overlaps with Detailed Analysis). As written it really does put the GM in a difficult position - there's a lot of area for a player to feel that they're being nerfed...Especially in a mystery adventure where the GM wants everyone to participate, but it might feel that the Detective just does everything... Elementary Deduction does a bit of the same, but if you want to give that ability it seems like it should come online at 9th; having a smooth transition to treating your roll as your level is a pleasing symmetry.

The 20th level ability feels like exactly what they pulled in Sherlock between his Season 2 death and the reveal that he wasn't actually dead. Undoing a character death is probably the easy way to use this ability - what about 'revealing' that the BBEG's carefully orchestrated plan that relies on using the Dread Artifact won't work because you 'had them switched yesterday'. Games never get to 20th level, anyway, but this is an ability that definitely requires DMs and players to be aligned in expectations.

I like the Agent Inclination best. Vigilante is pretty cool, but the 17th level ability seems unlikely to last long enough with a new save every round. At that level, I wonder if just letting it work isn't fine.


Assassin

So players who like Assassins tend to like the idea of being all by themselves and killing things completely safe hidden in the shadows. That's not great for a group game. I think those kinds of players will be disappointed that the Sneak Attack isn't 'the best'. Clearly you can just play a Detective and do basically the same thing... Maybe even better. Probably not, but not so clearly inferiorly as to rule that out. Cloaked in Shadow mentions katas, but I think that must refer to an earlier draft, since now they get Tricks. Or maybe that refers just to characters that have taken the Masquerade Guild?

I'm not sure if Damn Lies is supposed to automatically work against a 14th level detective, or whether the Assassin is supposed to make a save versus the Detective's epiphany save. It reads as outright immunity - if that is a common feature than the Detective's ability is probably worse than useless. Aphonia begs the question of what else besides spells and katas are similar - an assassin's trick? A cenobite's psychic powers? Thematically, I dislike that the Deadlander makes poison as a class ability. Poison OUGHT to be something in the world that anyone could theoretically make. If the point is just that they can make it at will, that becomes a question of how much of an advantage that really is, compared to buying the stuff. If a class ability duplicates something you can do with money or a skill, especially if it lasts forever, I tend to discount the ability.

[deaddmwalking]

Petmasters

We already talked about the summoner. I think arcane magic is probably the most straightforward power source, and depending on what summoned creatures can do, you can cover a lot of territory.

The four dead levels of the Gestalt visually look like too much - it's not the only class with 4 dead levels but most seem to have 3. I don't know about the Sidekick rules in Tasha's Cauldron of Everything, but I'm guessing that a character of your Gestalt level that doesn't count as another character when considering encounter design probably pushes you off the power curve. The problem with Puppetmaster is that you're making additional selections from the same list. You're going to take the most awesome power at 5th, so by the time you get to your 4th power at 17th level you're picking a power that you weren't excited enough to take at least three other chances that you could. That is no bueno. Higher powers should feel more empowering that lower powers, so additional selections from the same list usually doesn't work. The effects are pretty small, so as long as there is an action cost and/or Cathexis cost, this seems like something that should be tied into the advantages of the collective mind. Or at least SOME benefit should come from the collective mind. What about avoiding surprise? Bonuses on Perception? Less benefit from flanking? The Gestalt should be able to offer some incentives for the other PCs to join - being in the collective needs to give them benefits - and that way the Gestalt will have an easier time working with the party. Maybe make the Intercessor powers part of the default Gestalt list, and then the other Links could be distinct. Balancing that with the whole extra character is certainly an issue, but I think that is easier to address. It's okay to give the Thrall less power - the Gestalt is the 'real character', so if the player really wanted to be an Assassin, they would be. If their assassin thrall is less powerful than they are, it's clear why they're playing the Gestalt. Again, maybe the Sidekick rules already address this enough, but I'm wondering what would happen if the entire party played Gestalts, all with different Sidekick classes...

So an Elemental summoner is a good concept. Caller and Summoner sound like the same class, so making it more obviously elemental in the name seems like a good thing. As long as you have a Reaction you should take 2/3 of all damage from lifelink because you heal 1.5x as much; unless the damage exceeds your ability to take without repercussions (or serious fear of being dropped before you can do healing). Ie, if the damage is 15 and I take 10, if I heal myself 10 hit points my Eikon heals 5 automatically. I have a mild distaste for abilities that are so easily optimized. Like you can figure out the benefits of Power Attack, but they depend on what the target AC is, and given how many players express a love of differential calculus inside the game, players who actually optimize reliably are pretty rare. But this doesn't really require any thought at all. I think there are other ways to achieve the same result, possibly with taking dice of damage, and giving bonus dice of healing. In fact, if the the creature eventually got MORE healing than you did, based on your level, that might be alright. Like it could start with half as many dice, then be equal, then 2x. If they're big hit point bags, that's all good. That might require rejiggering the 17th level ability, but maybe advancing toward that could fill some of the dead levels.

Calling the Evocations 'bending' seems weird. We have Gifts, we have Mist, we have Evocations, and somehow that is also Bending? Maybe that's a holdover from a direct Avatar inspiration? It's referenced again in the Evoker Pilgrimage, so probably not. Still, feels like a lot of redundant terminology.

I have no idea what ability you get from Primal Bestowal. I assume that there's a list somewhere of what Eikons you could know, possibly from some type of Monster Manual, and that each Eikon has a list of abilities called 'Caller Features' that you can emulate. Basically if Eikons are cool, that's cool. If Eikons don't keep up with your level, that could be a problem. I don't think there are issues eyeballing the not-Pokemon, so there's probably no obvious issues here, but that's a pretty big assumption on my part.

I'm also guessing that you can't choose the same Eikon twice? The first ability of Favored Eikon would be pretty much invalidated if you could. I'm not sure that getting to bring it back with half hit points is really that good. I mean, the Favored Eikon with half hit points would have to be better than your other Eikon choice, unless this basically gives you 2.5 Eikons compared to the normal 2.

Does Beckon make sense if Eikons are kinda/sorta on a different plane by default? If you haven't called it, it's eligible to convoke, and if you convoke it, it appears from the aether. Apparently not another plane? If it's a manifestation of raw primal power does that mean you lose access if you leave your home plane? That seems bad for a class. Clarity on how an eikon can be separated from a caller seems worthwhile, here. Sensebond also seems vague. You have more than one eikon. Is it supposed to only work for ones you call? Or does it work on all of them that are waiting to be called? If they're manifestations of the primal energy of the world around you, it sounds like they're always 'there' even when they're not 'manifest'. So no idea what it means to have access to their senses when they're just waiting...
Shield Ally also seems kinda lame. I mean, an attack that misses you because of disadvantage is probably a good thing, but you're still taking damage. Since they heal when you heal, you already wanted to take more of the damage than they did. An ability like that should let them just automatically take the attack. You can still share the damage (and you probably want to), but it gives you two hit point totals to spread things over. Transposition doesn't help much if your Eikon is trying to stay close to you (so it can use Shield Ally). Basically I can't think of any reason why someone would choose the Painted Soul Pilgrimage over any of the others. Not sure that up to 11d8 healing at 11th level using Elemental Grace at the cost of all of your Mist is that impressive.

Conceptually, the Iconclast is more in line with what I was suggesting for the Uplink - reshaping reality opens questions of what that reality is, but if you don't dive too deep it's just magic. "asinine GM to screw over an iconoclast player" is a little informal, even in an author aside. Since none of the visions are fully detailed, it's hard to say anything particularly useful. I do think sample terrains are good - the more the better. I do think that six Alters is probably too little - just like the GM probably wants to create a variety of encounter locations, the player should want that, too. Something like a deck that you can draw map cards from that represent terrain that is 'more amenable to change' to the existing environment in some metaphysical way. Changes to the ambient conditions like light and temperature could be abilities that are relevant. If the character can turn ocean into an abandoned monastery, that's going to be bad for swimming creatures... Does the new reality overwrite the surrounding reality, or does the ocean rush back in? Anyways, I share your agreement that completely replacing the map is potentially the most dangerous power.

[deaddmwalking]

Sparks

Mage - So having looked over more classes, the only thing I want to add is that there are a lot more Arcane Leys than most classes get. That's a pretty clear sign that you're covering more thematic area. Honestly, it's hard not to do that with standard arcane magic, but good to be aware of. In our homebrew we try to push wizards toward one or two specialties - it's possible to have spells from every list but outside of picking up a random spell that is really helpful outside of your specialty (like healing magic) - but essentially one class replaces potentially dozens of others. In your system, even with dozens of classes, Mage is really a whole bunch of things. I don't want to suggest reducing the number of options available to your players, but this concept is big enough to divide more finely if you want to.

Engineer - One Last Adjustment has you making multiple selections from the same small list - I've explained why I don't like that as a design choice, and it applies here as well. Things like Oppenheimer's Lament allow you to bypass immunity. I know I've seen other abilities that work basically the same and haven't said anything, but it occurs to me that I'm assuming that's just standard for how 5th edition does things. I have a general objection to ignoring immunity, so if you were introducing it as a new mechanic I would suggest thinking twice, but if it's already common to the edition, there's no additional harm by adding more of it. Since the class relies primarily on inventions for their abilities, detailing what those will be is critical to making this class work. The list includes names for some higher level inventions, but without descriptions it's hard to say if they're better or worse than spells.

Druid - The Evoking is just like the Caller, but they're better at it, just as a Mage is better at Arcane than an Arbiter. I was really surprised that it is an elemental spell focused character - that's not what I think of when I think of druid. Thematically, it feels like it overlaps the Mage. The druid could take Lightning Vortex as a 6th level spell; Mage can take Meteor Swarm. In terms of theoretical damage output, the druid wins - repeating the spell multiple times for up to 1 minute is just obviously better than a single casting between long rests, but in actual combat, you're never going to get to use the same ability every round for an entire minute. If the two classes basically do the same thing - primary casters with different lists - it really just becomes an exercise in comparing lists. Given enough time and expansions and the limited number of spells known, it's almost a certainty that the Mage class will be the better choice - you'll get more options that cover a wider range of possible options, so it feels like Druid becomes redundant. I think it's a tall order to expand this class to have enough abilities to allow the two to stand alone. My thought is that if you have fewer options, they should be generally more powerful. Maybe the spell balance already supports that; but I think it's really tricky to balance in practice. You're always really just looking at the 10 best spells with minimal overlap and whichever one gives you the combination of the largest variety/best overall options (like most damage) ends up being the one you choose. There will be trade-offs between single target and area effect, etc, but given enough players working your list I think there are going to be 'solutions' and once the optimal choices are known it'll be a lot like list-building in Magic. Or it could be. In any case, I suggest considering all of that and looking at these carefully.

Anarch - There's something...unsettling...about a chaos themed class following patterns that have been established by other classes. At 2nd level you basically get to pick a free metamagic - just like several other classes. Signature whims just like signature inventions. Just seems like something more...random...should be here. From a balance stand point, it may be the right way to do things, but I think you run into the issue I brought up with the Druid - are the abilities themselves either enough better or enough different to justify it? I know the whims (spells) have chaos/random effects built in, so maybe that's enough, but I suspect that once a player has done this class once or twice they'll have come to a decision that the randomness isn't ENOUGH HELPFUL. Okay, actually there's definitely a type of player who will never get tired of getting a TPK because they got a spray of butterflies instead of a fireball, but that's not me.

[deaddmwalking]

Support

The Zen does that weird thing where instead of giving you your Wisdom modifier to your AC without armor, it creates a specific formula. That may be a 5th edition thing, but it seems like it's weird. Like if there's a spell that gives you +4 AC against one attack, apparently it doesn't? Maybe no such spells exist? That seems like a lot of discipline from a lot of different writers. But anyway, as written, if someone cast that spell on you, even if your Wis is +1 apparently your AC would be 10 + Dex + Wis instead. Bizarre. Otherwise the class is interesting and the integration with the void is well done. I'm not sure that it gets enough healing, but that's discernible through play testing.

The Shaman, like the Zen, gets a healing pool of 10xlevel; if that's being divided up across 4 characters, it seems pretty low. If used on one character exclusively, it's probably decent. To justify using a healing action, you have to have a companion who has an available action that's better than you doing something directly, which pretty much means you could have two of those characters and be better off than having one of those characters and someone that keeps returning them to the fight. Since you can spend the pool as a bonus action you can still contribute to the fight. I think that's really important - making sure that the healing is something extra they do most of the time so they can do fun things, too. Grounding Totem talks about spells, evocations and similar things - it's not obvious to me whether an invention or a kata is 'similar'. Totems are fun.

The gambler gets a healing pool, too, but doesn't get to spend it as a bonus action. That pretty much means you want to let your allies get as low as possible and then do all your healing at once to minimize how often you lose a chance to do your own thing. While that's a bit of a gamble, not sure it's what you want for a class like this, especially when combined with the touch requirement. There's a typo in Snake Eyes, but I think I understand what you're doing - unless you meant to indicate that it costs a resource like Bestow Luck pool (like Lucky Break) in which case that's completely missing. I feel like When the Chips are Down should refer to knowing when to fold rather than run. If you want to add one of those 'maybe you're not dead' features, you could call it Break Even. I like the games. The ranges for roulette seem like the kind of thing that are going to confuse a lot of people, but maybe I'm not giving them enough credit. This class is fun, too.

[deaddmwalking]

Warriors

The monk having a jedi order and the psionic adept being called a Jedi seems like it'll cause confusion. Feels like taking any option other than Manifesting would be a mistake, but maybe that's not as obvious to some people... I guess the idea of having a punch that can cause people to die might appeal to some people enough to override all other considerations.

Gunslinger fighting styles - I don't like options that are just '+2'. It's kinda boring. The fighting styles themselves don't seem character defining enough that you should make them exclusive. Having a trigger condition that lets you use them seems desirable. What gunfighter doesn't SOMETIMES dive for cover? But what player is going to choose that as THE ONE THING that defines their shootist?

Killing things to get your power doesn't seem like it's very reliable. Spending a soul for +2d6 damage doesn't seem like it's worthwhile. Just can't see any reason to give this class a try, even if I'm an emo teen that thinks draining the souls of my enemies for power is super-cool.

I think the Discordant needs a good look at the underlying math. I think that it's a really bad class that unfairly penalizes people that don't understand probabilities. A -1 penalty to attack rolls isn't worth a +1 damage. Every time you miss because of your ability and don't do any damage has to be made up for when you do hit.


Of the warrior classes, I think I like the runeblade the best - definitely feels like the ones that get to add spells of some kind are a tier above those that don't. Compared to characters with Sneak Attack it just doesn't seem like 2 (or 3) attacks or sometimes getting double damage is enough to make warriors a viable life choice... Maybe playtesting says otherwise?

[GnomeWorks]

The one thing that every game needs is verisimilitude - the idea that the game world is real for the characters. Revealing that the players around the table are the ACTUAL real world isn't clever - it's game destroying. While it's TRUE that our reality is real and the game is fantasy, saying that part out loud ruins the fun. There's nothing to be had in having a +12 hackmaster if the effort to earn it meant nothing.

Do you think that's air you're breathing?

Prove it.

Moving on.

Though I'm really surprised that nobody else has weighed in.

I'm open to other people taking a look and giving feedback.

On the subject of formatting, I think that the three paragraphs of character stories that begin each class should be divided better. After reading a few of them you know that you're jumping from one person to another, but that's not normally how paragraphs work.

This was how classes were presented in the 5e PH. I'm going to be a lot less receptive to takes on ... style, I guess, especially when I'm trying to match what WotC was doing for the purpose of parity.

Detective

rolling 'Investigate' checks to get information from the GM reinforces the separation of character and player, but the kind of player who likes solving mysteries wants to actually put the pieces together, rather than making a few d20 rolls and getting the solution.

Having skill-focused classes and concepts that try to accomplish things outside combat in a system where the skill system is effectively a few tacked-on paragraphs is always going to be an uphill battle, yes.

I don't have any good solution to the problem you've presented, other than to try to find alternative resources that expand upon how 5e skills work.

As for players wanting to solve mysteries -- we don't ask players playing fighters to lift weights when they want to swing a sword. There need to be viable avenues for players who aren't great at this kind of thing, or even those who just don't want to deal with it, to play characters that can.

Elementary Deduction does a bit of the same, but if you want to give that ability it seems like it should come online at 9th; having a smooth transition to treating your roll as your level is a pleasing symmetry.

Hmm... or I could jack up Inquisitive Senses to "lower than 9 is a 9," but I see your point.

The 20th level ability feels like exactly what they pulled in Sherlock between his Season 2 death and the reveal that he wasn't actually dead. Undoing a character death is probably the easy way to use this ability - what about 'revealing' that the BBEG's carefully orchestrated plan that relies on using the Dread Artifact won't work because you 'had them switched yesterday'.

Games never get to 20th level, anyway, but this is an ability that definitely requires DMs and players to be aligned in expectations.

There is certainly a degree of MTP involved, sure.

Really no different than some jackass casting wish, though.

Vigilante is pretty cool, but the 17th level ability seems unlikely to last long enough with a new save every round. At that level, I wonder if just letting it work isn't fine.

Hmm... yeah, actually, at 17th level, it's probably fine to just let that ride.

Assassin

I think those kinds of players will be disappointed that the Sneak Attack isn't 'the best'. Clearly you can just play a Detective and do basically the same thing... Maybe even better. Probably not, but not so clearly inferiorly as to rule that out.

Sneak attack was given to the skill monkey classes because they're all conceptual descendents of rogue, and the few people I showed an early draft of detective that didn't have sneak attack threw an absolute fit that the class wasn't terribly useful in combat.

An assassin may not deal more damage than a detective, but they're certainly more capable of getting into position to deal that damage to unsuspecting people and get away with doing so without getting caught. That seems a reasonable skill set for them, in my mind.

Cloaked in Shadow mentions katas, but I think that must refer to an earlier draft, since now they get Tricks. Or maybe that refers just to characters that have taken the Masquerade Guild?

Or have multiclassed. I don't allow it, and tell everyone I game with to not use it, but the core game assumes that there is a possibility MCing might be around, so I have to account for it when writing things so it's useful for a wider audience.

I'm not sure if Damn Lies is supposed to automatically work against a 14th level detective, or whether the Assassin is supposed to make a save versus the Detective's epiphany save. It reads as outright immunity - if that is a common feature than the Detective's ability is probably worse than useless.

Hmm... I thought I'd dealt with this satisfactorily, but I apparently hadn't.

The intention would be that they cancel out. A 14th-level assassin and a 14th-level detective interact normally (deception and insight checks, etc etc), while the former can lie to anyone else with impunity, and the latter can tell when most everyone else is lying automagically.

This is obviously not quite the case with the stuff as written, so I need to go back and address that.

Aphonia begs the question of what else besides spells and katas are similar - an assassin's trick? A cenobite's psychic powers?

The term "power" is used to generically refer to anything that is a spell or like a spell but for other power sources. So that would be: arcane spells; psionic disciplines; technological inventions; divine prayers; void katas; primal evocations; temporal quanta; chaotic whims; and memory codes.

An assassin's tricks are not powers.

Thematically, I dislike that the Deadlander makes poison as a class ability. Poison OUGHT to be something in the world that anyone could theoretically make.

Meh. So are magic items, and yet artificer has a niche.

If a class ability duplicates something you can do with money or a skill, especially if it lasts forever, I tend to discount the ability.

It's coming from the same school of thought that led to summoners just being able to replace their 'mons with new ones, despite the class fantasy being going out and catching them: if the DM or the milieu doesn't account for the existence of the class fantasy, then you have to give it the ability to function regardless.

Do poisons exist normally in the setting? Who knows. The 5e DMG apparently has a few poisons, but I didn't look into them extensively. Doesn't matter. The point of this being a thing for assassins is because "being the poison guy" is absolutely a valid class fantasy, and giving a class the tools to just do that without having to worry about it is a valid design choice.

The four dead levels of the Gestalt visually look like too much - it's not the only class with 4 dead levels but most seem to have 3.

In light of recent 5e changes, yes, it should have a feature at 6 that mucks around with making the thrall able to ignore resistance to nonmagical BPS and treat their weapon damage as force damage, which would put their dead levels at 3.

That said, however, sidekicks all get something at those levels -- spellcaster 10 is admittedly a touch weak -- but that leads to the levels not really being dead, they just look that way on the table.

I don't know about the Sidekick rules in Tasha's Cauldron of Everything

I'm not going to give you shit for not reading them, but it'd probably be helpful to more accurately gauge gestalt if you did...

but I'm guessing that a character of your Gestalt level that doesn't count as another character when considering encounter design probably pushes you off the power curve.

...because I'm not sure I agree with this assessment. Sidekicks are explicitly weaker than PCs, and having one around is (probably) no different than having a charmander or a charizard, which also don't count for encounter design because they're part of the class.

Gestalt gets theirs called out because it's interfacing with mechanics that explicitly tell the MC to account for them in combat like they were a character. I want them to not do that in the case of gestalt, because it's a pet class, and part of their power budget is the sidekick.

The problem with Puppetmaster is that you're making additional selections from the same list.

Boring dogmatic take.

To bring this approach to its logical extreme, wizards should not be selecting spells and instead should just be told what gets added to their spell list every level.

The effects are pretty small, so as long as there is an action cost and/or Cathexis cost, this seems like something that should be tied into the advantages of the collective mind. Or at least SOME benefit should come from the collective mind. What about avoiding surprise? Bonuses on Perception? Less benefit from flanking? The Gestalt should be able to offer some incentives for the other PCs to join - being in the collective needs to give them benefits - and that way the Gestalt will have an easier time working with the party.

While interesting -- no. The "adding other PCs to the collective" bit is, honestly, mostly fluff: pet classes are already kind of a bitch and a half to balance. Their benefits are really intended largely for the thrall, what is there beyond that is me taking those notions to logical conclusions and giving them a bit of something to add to the rest of the party, but they're meant to be neat add-ons, not the meat and potatoes of the class.

So an Elemental summoner is a good concept. Caller and Summoner sound like the same class, so making it more obviously elemental in the name seems like a good thing.

I'll be straight with you, I have no idea where you're coming from with "caller sounds more elemental."

As long as you have a Reaction you should take 2/3 of all damage from lifelink because you heal 1.5x as much; unless the damage exceeds your ability to take without repercussions (or serious fear of being dropped before you can do healing). Ie, if the damage is 15 and I take 10, if I heal myself 10 hit points my Eikon heals 5 automatically. I have a mild distaste for abilities that are so easily optimized.

I like how this take completely and utterly ignores the situation on the ground.

White-room theorycrafting is useful for a couple things, I'll grant. This doesn't feel like one of them.

That might require rejiggering the 17th level ability, but maybe advancing toward that could fill some of the dead levels.

If a pet class has a dead level, it's (generally) because their pets are getting things. I realize in caller's case that's difficult to confirm because I don't have any of them publicly available.

Calling the Evocations 'bending' seems weird. We have Gifts, we have Mist, we have Evocations, and somehow that is also Bending?

...yeah? We have sorcerers with cantrips, going around casting spells, using sorcery points to do stuff.

Meanwhile a caller has gifts, going around bending evocations, using mist points to do stuff.

Part of power sources being different is different terminology. Sure, it's a minor thing, and I get that it probably sounds like a lot to keep track of. But flavor is important.

I'm also guessing that you can't choose the same Eikon twice? The first ability of Favored Eikon would be pretty much invalidated if you could.

...yeah, it should probably be more explicit about the fact that you can only pick a given eikon once.

I'm not sure that getting to bring it back with half hit points is really that good. I mean, the Favored Eikon with half hit points would have to be better than your other Eikon choice,

It doesn't have to be better generally for this choice to make sense, it needs to just be better in contexts you encounter.

Does Beckon make sense if Eikons are kinda/sorta on a different plane by default?

It is a default assumption that unless otherwise stated, a pet class is assumed to have a pet out at all times.

If you haven't called it, it's eligible to convoke, and if you convoke it, it appears from the aether. Apparently not another plane?

I don't really do planar shit, and the "disappears back into the aether" was just flavor, in my mind. It wasn't meant to imply anything other than "this isn't your active pet so it fucks off back into its pokeball when you're done using its ability."

If it's a manifestation of raw primal power does that mean you lose access if you leave your home plane? That seems bad for a class.

While ... well, no actually, I don't see how or why you came to this conclusion, or why you decided to just run with it and arrive at all sorts of weird, obviously-not-intended-because-that'd-be-stupid places.

As mentioned, I generally don't do planar shit, but it seems to me that it'd be fundamentally stupid to design a class that explicitly loses their class features outside the prime, when plane-hopping is a time-honored D&Dism.

Is it the "the eikon is a manifestation of the world" bit? That's just a bit of flavor to justify not getting fucked over by things designed to block teleportation or summoning spells blocking you from having your primary class feature.

So I don't really know what to do with this take, other than tell you to maybe not read so much into things.

Clarity on how an eikon can be separated from a caller seems worthwhile, here.

If you wanted to expound on this point a bit and explain exactly what you mean by "can be separated," and under what conditions you might expect that to happen, that would probably be helpful, because I'm having a hard time following your trains of thought here.

Sensebond also seems vague. You have more than one eikon. Is it supposed to only work for ones you call?

Yes, apparently I missed the word "called" in the phrase "senses of your called eikon," I'll note that and correct it in the future.

Basically I can't think of any reason why someone would choose the Painted Soul Pilgrimage over any of the others.

Since it's basically just PF summoner features translated into 5e, that kinda feels like it tracks.

Not sure that up to 11d8 healing at 11th level using Elemental Grace at the cost of all of your Mist is that impressive.

...yeah, that's probably fair, yeah. That can use some adjusting.

"asinine GM to screw over an iconoclast player" is a little informal, even in an author aside.

Some days I'm salty about asshole GMs. Sue me. It'll probably get edited out in a future revision, just like a lot of other asides I've put in some of these.

I do think that six Alters is probably too little - just like the GM probably wants to create a variety of encounter locations, the player should want that, too.

This tells me you haven't spent that much time staring at iconoclast and thinking about all the terrible, horrible circumstances under which it could completely and utterly fuck things up for a GM.

Six is plenty. Six is absolutely plenty.

Does the new reality overwrite the surrounding reality, or does the ocean rush back in?

The notion is that only creatures and objects, I guess, can cross it, not terrain. Yes, I realize that's a nebulous definition and there isn't any particular rhyme or reason to it, but that's the line I'm trying to draw, more or less.

[GnomeWorks]

Mage - So having looked over more classes, the only thing I want to add is that there are a lot more Arcane Leys than most classes get.

All sparks get five subclasses, one for each school in their beam.

They don't have "more" than anyone else in their beam. Every class of a given beam shares a power list: I thought, early on, about having curated lists for each class, or doing some kind of "you only get a subset of schools" like core 5e eldritch knight and arcane trickster, then decided that was more hassle than it was worth.

In your system, even with dozens of classes, Mage is really a whole bunch of things.

This is something of a conceptual holdover from the TTRPG I attempted to design many years back -- I like the notion of casters whose gimmick is nothing but casting being generalists, able to do a lot but not necessarily having any one particular thing they're good at.

That kind of gets lost a bit with 5e with the subclass approach I took, but that's the underlying notion.

Things like Oppenheimer's Lament allow you to bypass immunity. I know I've seen other abilities that work basically the same and haven't said anything, but it occurs to me that I'm assuming that's just standard for how 5th edition does things.

Not sure how often it shows up in core, honestly, but it's a thing I'm doing.

Druid - The Evoking is just like the Caller, but they're better at it, just as a Mage is better at Arcane than an Arbiter. I was really surprised that it is an elemental spell focused character - that's not what I think of when I think of druid.

It's called "druid" because it's the primal caster, and I decided "bender" just... didn't do it for me.

Given enough time and expansions and the limited number of spells known, it's almost a certainty that the Mage class will be the better choice - you'll get more options that cover a wider range of possible options, so it feels like Druid becomes redundant.

You're making a fundamental assumption here that there are expansions.

There are not -- or, rather, if there are, there will be expansions to every list at more or less the same time, explicitly to ensure some degree of parity.

Also this seems to suggest that you're thinking that core spell lists and whatever nonsense WotC puts out are accessible and intended to be used alongside these things. That is incorrect. If you take a look at the spell list I included in the table above, and compare it to 5e, you will note that it is considerably smaller and more limited. That is intentional.

Anarch - There's something...unsettling...about a chaos themed class following patterns that have been established by other classes.

Randomness is part of chaos, but it is not the whole sum of chaos.

I know the whims (spells) have chaos/random effects built in, so maybe that's enough

They're not built in to the effects, that's their resource management mechanic. When you're about to hit your chaos threshold, it becomes a question of "is indulging this whim worth the potential of making things worse."

Which becomes a contextual question and a matter of personal playstyle. Not every beam or class will speak to everyone -- that's part of why having a ton of them is a good idea.

The Zen does that weird thing where instead of giving you your Wisdom modifier to your AC without armor, it creates a specific formula. That may be a 5th edition thing, but it seems like it's weird.

It is a 5e thing. Nothing weird about it.

Like if there's a spell that gives you +4 AC against one attack, apparently it doesn't? Maybe no such spells exist?

I have no idea why you are coming to this conclusion, and no one I have talked to about 5e or had at the table has ever come to it either.

All the overwrite of the core AC function does is overwrite the core AC function. If you have random other things that modify it later, then they still work as intended.

This may be mind caulk on the part of people who play 5e, but near as I can tell that's a universal understanding.

The Shaman, like the Zen, gets a healing pool of 10xlevel; if that's being divided up across 4 characters, it seems pretty low.

Compare this to core, in which a 1st level cleric has 2 uses of cure wounds for ~1d8+3 a pop, and that's it for healing for the day.

Support classes at 1st level have 20 points (10 base, then refresh 5 of that on a short rest twice), on top of having at least two uses of their beam's equivalent of cure wounds. Assuming they took it -- not a guarantee, I've seen a support class who didn't take it and instead relied on their class's healing pool.

Going much higher than that feels like we're moving too far afield from core's expectations of available healing. 5e in-combat healing feels bad, yes, and I want to get rid of that problem, but not to the extent that we're drastically changing encounter expectations and such. A bit of change is fine, but we can't move the needle too much.

Since you can spend the pool as a bonus action you can still contribute to the fight. I think that's really important - making sure that the healing is something extra they do most of the time so they can do fun things, too.

This is also why their equivalent to extra attack is letting them use any power that heals hit points as a bonus action.

In practice, this has worked out extremely well, and since I started using this class paradigm I've never run into the issue of no one wanting to play a healer. That there are options beyond "oddly-specific-crusader-flavored-van-helsing-expy-religious-man" probably helps.

Grounding Totem talks about spells, evocations and similar things - it's not obvious to me whether an invention or a kata is 'similar'.

...ah, that wording predates my decision of using "power" as a universal term for spells, evocations, etc. It is intended to be useful against powers.

The gambler gets a healing pool, too, but doesn't get to spend it as a bonus action.

Oversight, it's intended to be usable on a bonus action. And also have 30 ft range.

Every support class's healing pool is supposed to be usable on Action or Bonus Action, and at range. Gambler was written before that decision was standardized in my brainpan, and even in updates I apparently hadn't bothered to change it.

There's a typo in Snake Eyes, but I think I understand what you're doing - unless you meant to indicate that it costs a resource like Bestow Luck pool (like Lucky Break) in which case that's completely missing.

...damn, yeah. Pretty sure "your Reaction" was the intended missing bit there.

The ranges for roulette seem like the kind of thing that are going to confuse a lot of people, but maybe I'm not giving them enough credit.

Nah, it's always been a bitch and a half trying to write that and present it in a way that makes sense on the first pass. If there's a more sensible way to present that information, I'm open to hearing it.

The monk having a jedi order and the psionic adept being called a Jedi seems like it'll cause confusion.

Yep, totally would. Adepts are a relatively new addition (read: like... last weekend), so I didn't put a lot of thought into the class names and went with my gut for some of them. That jedi was already a monk subclass was something I felt like I'd address when I got there.

Feels like taking any option other than Manifesting would be a mistake

5e is a descendent of 3e, and so it still being caster edition makes some degree of sense, unfortunately.

But yes, some people just want to punch things to death and not worry about having spell lists.

Gunslinger fighting styles - I don't like options that are just '+2'. It's kinda boring.

I mean, gunslinger fighting styles in particular have some words changed to account for the fact that guns are a thing, but these are generally just carbon-copied fighting styles from core 5e.

Again, one of the goals is to not overly rock the boat. Some level of parity with core is to be expected.

The fighting styles themselves don't seem character defining enough that you should make them exclusive.

And yet, here we are...

Killing things to get your power doesn't seem like it's very reliable. Spending a soul for +2d6 damage doesn't seem like it's worthwhile. Just can't see any reason to give this class a try, even if I'm an emo teen that thinks draining the souls of my enemies for power is super-cool.

I wound up playtesting reaper for an evening once, and uh -- yeah, you are more or less hitting the nail on the head, the class gimmick has a lot of problems. I like the overall feel and I think it mostly hits, it just needs some conceptual work and probably a bit of math hammering.

I think the Discordant needs a good look at the underlying math.

Heh. Probably.

I think that it's a really bad class that unfairly penalizes people that don't understand probabilities. A -1 penalty to attack rolls isn't worth a +1 damage. Every time you miss because of your ability and don't do any damage has to be made up for when you do hit.

Part of their gimmick is dealing damage even when they miss.

It's not about probabilities. It's about hilariously stupidly low accuracy and still getting headshots.

Compared to characters with Sneak Attack it just doesn't seem like 2 (or 3) attacks or sometimes getting double damage is enough to make warriors a viable life choice...

With the exception of runeblade -- which I've been tinkering with off and on pretty much the whole time -- most of the warrior classes presented here were written early on, so it's possible they're both mathematically undertuned and conceptually underwhelming.

[deaddmwalking]

I know you didn't have any Adept Classes to look at, but considering that they seem very similar to the Warrior concepts, I'm not sure that developing them further makes sense - maybe combining them with the existing Warrior classes would make them more suitable.

Spellsword/Runeblade; Monk/Jedi (especially Jedi Monk); Gunbreaker/Gunslinger (especially Riskbreaker Gunslinger) seem to cover the same concept, but maybe that's not really true.

Regarding Petmaster class names, Caller and Summoner strike me as absolute synonyms. If you swapped names but made no other changes, it wouldn't be obvious to anyone. If you called the Caller 'Summoner' and it summoned elementals, or you called the class 'Caller' and it calls elementals, you'd be the same class. While they do have different names and Callers call elementals and summoners don't summon elementals, nothing in the name indicates that one way or the other. I think most of the class names do a good job of describing the class in a way that players can keep them straight in their head and grok the power source; these two specifically don't. My suggestion was to rename one of the classes to make it obvious what it does: Elemental Caller instead of Caller.

I've only played a small amount of 5th edition, but my overall take on your classes is that they'd be more fun to play than anything that WotC released. Now that I've given everything a first pass, anything that you'd specifically like me to look at in more detail? Build comparisons? Math hammering? Suggestions for abilities where you have "???"?

[GnomeWorks]

I know you didn't have any Adept Classes to look at, but considering that they seem very similar to the Warrior concepts, I'm not sure that developing them further makes sense - maybe combining them with the existing Warrior classes would make them more suitable.

Yeah... they're not, though. At least not intended to be. They're conceptually adjacent, that I'll grant, but they are intended to be different approaches and coexist.

Here is an early pass at gunbreaker; not adding it to the table yet because there are still some elements of its I'm percolating on, but I'm generally happy with the overall chassis and what it's trying to accomplish.

Also, spellsword? Who said anything about a spellsword? The arcane adept is totally called a jack. That one is considerably less-developed than gunbreaker, but a player was rather concerned about potential toe-steppage with runeblade, so wanted to make sure I could figure out a concept that filled a different niche.

Regarding Petmaster class names, Caller and Summoner strike me as absolute synonyms.

Fair enough.

My suggestion was to rename one of the classes to make it obvious what it does: Elemental Caller instead of Caller.

Ha. That's not happening. IMO core class names should never be two words like that.

I've only played a small amount of 5th edition, but my overall take on your classes is that they'd be more fun to play than anything that WotC released. Now that I've given everything a first pass, anything that you'd specifically like me to look at in more detail? Build comparisons? Math hammering? Suggestions for abilities where you have "???"?

Whatever suits your fancy. There's still lots to do and finalize.

[deaddmwalking]

I was reading a blog by DM David about why players often struggle with a true sandbox campaign. He linked to a
NY Times Article about decision-making titled Too Many Choices: A Problem That Can Paralyze.

In any case, I think considering how many choices people make and how meaningful those choices are is really important. In the original Super Mario Brothers, there's no difference between Mario and Luigi - it's just a palette swap, but in the 2nd one (as released in the US) there's a difference in how far each character jumps and their strength. They're pretty minor, but there are stages where one character has an easier time than another, so the differences actually matter a fair bit in the limited play space.

In a game like D&D, where you anticipate ~4 players, the number of classes and their ability to cover a role matter a lot. Rolling randomly to generate a party I got 2 Wardens, a Sage and an Epochent. I have no idea if that might be a viable party, but even if the players made sure not to choose the same class and/or role, there are always going to be a lot of roles remaining unfulfilled.