Post/Author/DateTime	Post
#1 Xeviat-DM Jun 18, 2015 2:08:35	Hey everyone! I'm entering the fun part of the life of an edition: making up new stuff. I feel confident enough in the relative balance of the edition that I'm comfortable enough to start playing with it. Making races seems easy enough; the real fun seems to be in making subclasses.    It helps that 5E is using the same set of 12 classes that I settled on in my own attempts at rebalancing 4E. The concept was that these 12 classes were the broadest classes within D&D's metasetting (as it assumes a difference between sources of magic and that the fantasy knight in shining armor should have magic, among other things), and that each class could embody multiple roles.   5E has largely abandoned the roles concept of 4E, so now I'm simply thinking of concepts. Among concepts that I like and I've played with before, two jump out at me that are especially fun: the Kensei/Weapon Master, and the Slayer.   What is the Kensei or Weapon Master? The concept is a swordsman (or axewoman or hammerperson) who focuses on its art to supernatural skill. They aren't a spellcaster, but they may do ridiculous things like cut a foe from 20 paces. I imagine a swordsman who eschews armor and shields, and uses their chosen weapon to near exclusion. But, is the Kensei a Monk who focuses on weapon combat, or a Fighter who gets a bit of Ki to play with like the Eldritch Knight gets spells to play with?   Next, what is the Slayer? The concept started out in my head as a "half sorcerer", assuming the ranger to be a half druid, the paladin to be a half cleric, and the bard to be a half wizard. This place was taken by the warlock, but the concept still echoes in my mind. Where the I envisioned the sorcerer as someone who was born of magical blood, the slayer was someone who had been touched by darkness and now used that darkness to fight those very foes. Alucard of Vampire Hunter D and Blade of Marvel Comics are examples of Vampire Slayers. But where could I fit this in? Is it a warlock subclass, replacing their pact with a touch of darkness that they draw power from? Is it a ranger path or a paladin oath?   In addition to my two ideas, what are subclass ideas that you have which are hard to pin down to a single class? Can you imagine PrCs in 5E which make up levels 11 through 20 of a multiclass concept?
#2 Brock_Landers Jun 18, 2015 2:14:54	Minor nitpick, it's Kensei, not Kensai.  I do not see really what a kensei subclass would really bring; I converted the Book of Nine Swords/Tome of Battle classes/system to 5th Ed, that works.
#3 cowleymen Jun 18, 2015 3:00:59	the idea of a half sorceror type caster is interesting. if such a person would be a "slayer" is something im not drawn to right away.    To me A ranger already fills a "____ slayer". As for Kensai, it be the three fighter subclasses can already represent any type of warrior, solider, man-at-arms, and fighting man I can think of. The greatest thing for me is that besides being versetile in just three subclasses, combine each one with a background and you get even more different characters. A Battlemaster with a noble background can be a Samuria Lord, or a champion with acoylate is a sword-saint, able to push his body to the edge of physical ability with strength of faith   Even with their limited mechanical abilities and effects, backgrounds are what I want to see more of in future material.
#4 Xeviat-DM Jun 18, 2015 3:03:09	For the fighter, a kensei (thanks for the correction) would bring maneuvers that break the boundaries of normalcy that thd battle master subscribes to. It would eschew armor, though making that change at 3rd level would feel weird, which makes it feel like a monk subclass. Book of Nine Swords stuff definitely fits.
#5 Xeviat-DM Jun 18, 2015 3:07:32	The ranger very much fits the role of the slayer, which is why i suggested it as the chassis for the subclass. The hunter simply doesn't have the options that a vampire slayer, lycanthrop slayer, or aberration slayer would want. Also, divine spells feel weird.
#6 Brock_Landers Jun 18, 2015 3:26:25	Xeviat-DM wrote:
#7 Brock_Landers Jun 18, 2015 3:29:03	Xeviat-DM wrote:
#8 Lawolf Jun 18, 2015 8:09:24	Im still in the process of finishing it, but I thought of something similar to the Kensei idea of yours. In fact the class was actually named Kensei for a quite a while, but I feel Kensei has too much baggage. The class is somewhat based off the 3e ToB classes, but taking inspiration from 4e, PF, and 13th Age as well.   Check it out HERE.
#9 Xeviat-DM Jun 18, 2015 13:10:36	Interesting class. I don't really want to make a full fledged class, though; I do want to expand out the subclass system before I venture into other classes.   As for making the Ranger into a Slayer (Undead), here's what the current hunter gets, broadly speaking:   Level 3: Offensive ability, on the order of +1d8 to many damage rolls, reaction attacks against large creatures, or extra attacks against multiple targets. Level 7: Defensive ability, including disadvantage on opportunity attacks against you, +4 ac against multiple attacks beyond the first (wow), or advantage on saves vs fear. Level 11: Offensive ability, either area attacks with ranged weapons or close area attacks with melee weapons. Level 15: Defensive ability, including evasion, redirecting attacks (slightly offensive), or reaction for half damage.   I wouldn't give any strict bonuses or defenses against undead, but I'm sure there could be plenty of things that could apply to multiple sources (heck, advantage on saves vs. necromancy spells or specials from undead would apply pretty broadly).
#10 Istbor Jun 19, 2015 6:58:24	Lawolf wrote:
#11 cowleymen Jun 19, 2015 12:40:39	Brock_Landers wrote:
#12 LuisCarlos17f Jun 19, 2015 14:27:47	For me "slayer" is a undead-hunter, like Buffy, or Solomon Kane, the inquisitor class from Pahtfinder and the Avenger from D&D 4th ed, a divine spellcaster more offensive than cleric, without heavy medium.   About the "sacred sword" or the "swordsage", I imagine him like a monk with a sword, with ki maneuvers and poses, and maybe a subclass with some divine spell.
#13 shintashi Jun 19, 2015 15:58:01	I'm working on a kensei class right now based on two archetypes, pulling from 1e and 3e. I would prefer to incorrectly call it kensai just to avoid confusion with various editions. When I write it up, it will strongly resemble what you might expect mechanically represents Sengoku and Tokugawa period anime like Samurai 7, Shura no Toki, Rouroni Kenshin, Peacemaker, etc., as well as period variant adaptations like Afro Samurai.   Here's a sample anime list of what i'm attempting to do (i did not make this list): http://www.ranker.com/list/best-samurai-anime/ranker-anime?page=2
(Reply to #12) shintashi	LuisCarlos17f wrote:
(Reply to #11) Xeviat-DM	what do you feel is missing from a ranger that a "slayer" needs. I stronger version of favored enemy? You say a slayer, some one with a hated foe, but Rangers already get that, regardless if you go Hunter or Beast Master. Also, why do divine spells feel weird? In truth, I really miss the Primal tag. Divine invokes a religious conitation for me that doesnt really feel right on either the Druid or Ranger for me, but its not a huge deal really, thats just fluf.
#16 Lawolf Jun 19, 2015 16:27:24	I think the monk could be a decent chasis for a Swordsage type class, but I have a few major issues with the 5e monk.   First off, there is a glaring problem with ki. The battlemaster starts with 4 maneuver uses per rest and eventually gets up to 6. The monk starts with 2 and gets up to 20. That is a very significant difference. If you want Kensei/Swordsage maneuvers to be more powerful and more over the top than battlemaster maneuvers, it all sort of fizzles. Either the maneuvers cost so much ki that they are not frequently used enough to make the subclass feel different from a plain monk, or they cost too few ki and are readily spammable.   My next problem is stunning fist. Stunning fist is an amazing ability for 1 ki point. Potentially stunning an enemy is huge, and by level 20, you can do it 20 times per rest. You can basically lock down any monster you fight, all combat long, every combat. Why use a cool maneuver when stunning fist is probably going to be a better use of ki anyway?   Then you have the bonus action problem. The monk has too much reliant on its bonus action. Dodge, Step of the Wind, Flurry of Blows, and the like all use the monks bonus action. This means it must choose to either deal decent damage, have mobility, or avoid damage. A fair sounding trade off in theory. But when you realize that the monk actually is quite fragile, has no uncanny dodge like the rogue to reduce damage without a resource cost, and deals pathetic damage without using flurry of blows, it all starts to fall apart.   Another issue is that the monk cannot use weapons. It would require a subclass feature to actually allow the monk to use weapons in the first place, which is sort of strange for a weaponmaster to start with almost no weapon proficiency at all.   Finally, I really dislike almost every ability for the monk from level 10+, both from a flavor and a mechanical standpoint. Purity of Body, Tongue of Sun and Moon, Timless Body, Empty Body, and Perfect Self, all don't really seem fitting for a martial artist, and definitely not for a Kensei/Swordsage type character. They are really uninspiring abilities that remind me of some cheesy kung-fu movie from the 70s.
#17 shintashi Jun 20, 2015 8:41:28	the ranger foe thing is crap. call it for what it is. in 5 editions it's the worst of the bunch. no matter how many of those things i get, they all suck. i'd rather have one foe i got a solid damage bonus on at low levels, than 5 categories where im just good at tracking them in a local region. Any power that takes 16th or higher level to use isn't really part of the class. It's icing on a cake i'll never get to eat. Our campaign uses modules and they only go to 15, so I'm likely to get 10 minutes of play with level 15 powers and months of play with level 1-14 powers.   When you look to designing a new class, like a slayer, it is important to remember they aren't level 20. That Module thing is what you should be thinking about when trying to figure their primary abilities. That's why i think saying the ranger already fills a slaying nitch is a bit like saying a Geo Metro can be used at the Indie 500, and if I'm a munchkin twink powergame god wannabe for saying it, then I gladly wear that girlscout cookie merit badge sash proudly... corn syrup and all.
#18 cowleymen Jun 20, 2015 23:31:47	Lawolf wrote:
#19 Xeviat-DM Jun 21, 2015 0:06:48	In my own world, humans were slaves to the giants in ancient times. They didn't allow people to practice combat or magic. Monks were the first to rebel, creating a tradition of unarmed combat and combat with tools. The early human religion, which focused on empowering the self and achieving immortality through ascention, became the foundation of Monk teachings. The first rebellion was quelled, but enough monks were able to escape that they were able to establish a monestary far away from the giant civilization. Over time, that single monestary split into others, whether it was simply because some left and traveled and settled down, or because traditions evolved and schisms developed.   Really, I think Monks would fit into the standard D&D worlds if they were labled divine. They wouldn't fall in with every deity, but their tradition could be a religious one alongside druids and paladins as being a little separate from the faiths of the deities. They don't have to be seen as "Asian", even though their inspiration comes from filtered Asian stereotypes.   Alternately, you could do what I've considered doing, and having the Monk and Barbarian seen as two sides of the "inner power" coin. The Monk channels their Ki into their supernatural effects; the Barbarian channels theres into rage.
#20 Tony_Vargas Jun 21, 2015 0:28:45	Xeviat-DM wrote:
#21 shintashi Jun 21, 2015 11:40:27	psionics and ki should have been tied together for a long time. Monk seems awkward all by itself, but throw in a pile of psionics, samurai, kensai, and chakra ninja and poof, you have a whole campaign world.   Dark Sun was funny when you think about it. That scene from Conan where he is pushing the wheel, followed by the slave pit gladiator fights... that is somehow added to the Mad Max film series with biker gangs, but on dinosaurs and caravans, but otherwise they look the same, vast desert wastelands full of hopped up mutants on steroids. Mad Max was one of the inspirational Settings for Fist of the North Star (a literal cross between Bruce Lee and various Sylvester Stallone characters like Rocky and Rambo), with again, giant post holocaust mutants on steroids in a desert wasteland... but now you have people with all this psychic energy, clairvoyance, and watatataH! exploding heads. In comes the monk. A similar wasteland film, Afro Samurai introduces a kensei to a similar post apocalyptic mutant Mad Max setting.   So yeah, I think it is clear our culture - east and west, have this amazing cross over, and clearly, the same themes are repeated, even though the character classes available change.
#22 Xeviat-DM Jun 22, 2015 1:53:54	Tony_Vargas wrote: