Just went up about 45 minutes ago.
Devilbass wrote:
As I read through the first part, which was essentailly a long warning about changing anything, I wasn't very enthused. But then came the examples of new subclasses for Sorcerer and Ranger, and that seemed more positive. The "Favoured Soul" doesn't really fit my campaign, although it might make a fun deluded villain, but I'm inclined to make one of the rangers as an NPC and see how it plays as a new 'henchman'.
I really like that take on the Favored Soul and I'm going to make that available in my games right away.
I really like the Favoured Soul design, but I think almost everyone is going to pick from the domains that have "Cure Wounds". That leaves a lot of domains that will probably not get Favoured Souls to represent them.
I'm not sure anything can be done about that, it just seems unfortunate. Maybe also allow the FS to choose one of ther sorcerer spells known from the cleric list instead of the sorcerer list?
Synjin wrote:
Personally, I don't feel like the sorcerer is all that great a fit for the favored soul. The 3e version couldn't cast fireball and the like, for instance. Also, with only a d6 hit die, what favored soul is actually going to want to wade into melee, medium armor proficiency or no? I think they'd have been better served getting the bonus hit points that a dragon sorcerer gets. That extra hit point per level puts them closer to a d8 hit die.
As for the spell-less ranger, this version looks pretty good. It's good to see that it's actually been updated from the alpha playtest version (unlike the warforged, which was identical to the open playtest version).
DemoMonkey wrote:
ChrisCarlson wrote:
Chris
I have yet to see a bard player or a ranger player in 5E that didn't take Cure Wounds. How many have you seen didn't?
I'm not saying it's mandatory, mind you. I'm just saying it's a superior enough choice that it overshadows other flavorful choices.
Very nice to get the designers' insights on class design and balance.
Kudos to WOTC, makes me wanna design new stuff! 
Edit: Having read the whole thing now, I quite like the favored soul but not too hot on the spell-less ranger. Maneuvers just don't fit in my mind, it also just seems generally worse.
Tempest_Stormwind wrote:
I feel that this was less than helpful. Ranger, Bard, Warlock, and Paladin are my favorite classes, especially the sword-and-spell paths. This write-up doesn't help at all.
The spell-less ranger and favored soul were nice. But touching anything else? Bleh.
DemoMonkey wrote:
edwin_su wrote:
Mephi1234 wrote:
3.0e/3.5e Sorc and 3.5e Favored Soul are almost the same.
3.5eSRD Generic Caster is basically both squeezed together.
So yeah, there's some lineage here, to make FS on a Sorc base.
More blasty than a Valor Bard. More variety than a Blade'Lock.
Should float somebodies's boat(s).
Tony_Vargas wrote:
I think a lot of people are missing the point of this article. It wasn't about spell-less rangers or divine sorcerors. It was about letting us in on the process that WOTC uses to alter classes. More interesting than the actual subclasses was the process that they showed us for each step of the process.
Personally for me, I couldn't care less about what they actually produced. It could have been a court jester subclass for the barbarian for all I care. This article was extremely helpful in giving me an incite into the game design that WOTC is using. I have been struggling for quite some time to come up with my own subclasses to reflect archetypes not reflected in the rules (tinkerer, dueslist/swashbuckler, warlord, etc.), but this article has proven extremely helpful in reassuring me of what I'm doing right and showing me where I could be off the mark.
People need to look less at the actual products of this article (which will be up for debate no matter what it is) and focus more on what Rodney's trying to teach us.
albinocroc444 wrote:
I love the concept of favored soul. For me it isn´t only a sorcerer with armour and divine spells but also a hook to create new stories. In some world created by me the favored souls are a mixture of Kratos, god of war, Wonder Woma, Jon Snow and Percy Jackon. In my world fays and giants are the offspring of factions who lost the Titanomachy in the ancient times. In my setting there is a almost conflict between clerics and favored souls. Favored souls would be like "out of marriage" sons who are placed in the high position of the church... and the true clerics don´t like that.
* About wings like class feature for favored sould...I suggest another options for players who could fly by other ways, for example the raptorans or avariels (winged elves). I mean I suggest an option B for who doesn´t want the first one.
I think the article is a nice example showing that class-splat is desired (at least by some players). The two examples are nice first takes, but agree with some of the flaws that have been pointed out, like how the FS's retained squishiness is a poor combination with more focus on weapon damage. Overall, I like that we're encouraged (despite the warnings) to create our own splat.
Oooh. FS was always my favourite 3.5 class. May have to have a play
DemoMonkey wrote:
DemoMonkey wrote:
My bard didn't have cure wounds. He only had heal word.
I think it mainly has something to do with what you're trying to accomplish. Sure, if you're the party's healer, you're probably taking Life. But some of the other domains are really good at filling the gaps in the Sorcerer spell list to make a 'Wizard'
Tempest_Stormwind wrote:
DaomSlayer wrote:
How do you square this statement:
"Why can't a ranger carry more poultices? Just because. It's ridiculous."
With this one:
"You can do this as many times as you have ingredients, but it takes an hour of rest for the poultice to function and you can only have one active at a given time."
ChrisCarlson wrote:
The concept of scout or magless ranger is interesting for enemy nPCs (for example forest goblins) and low-magic-level settings like "Song of Fire & Ice".
* We shouldn´t forget another option for a variant class, the warmage from 3.5 the complete arcane handbook. It is like an armoured sorcerer with a military background.
Because like in RL sometimes taking more medecine doesn't make your booboos go away faster? More meds != faster healing.
We're talking about having a plausible explanation or rationale for why the mechanic works the way it does, or has such limitations, not making that a straightjacket to model how many CCs of cure-all-leaf you're allowed to apply at once.
It makes sense that it should take some time to find the ingredients, then to make a poultice, then to apply it, then to benefit from it. Basically everything I wrote is already 100x better than what Rodney came up with. I like the rest of the spell-less ranger class though. I'll probably play one.
Favored Soul's AC is way too high compared to the draconic one though, I agree with the poster who brought that up. Unbalanced. They should remove the shield prof at least. Or maybe make it shield + light armor only. Only needing to boost dex to 14 to max out AC potential means a lot less pressure on that stat, making the character overall even more unbalanced compared to the dragon sorc. It's basically free MC life cleric 1. At first level. Sorc 1 + Life Cleric 1 for the cost of 0 XP spent over Sorc 1 = unbalanced.
DaomSlayer wrote:
Ranthalan wrote:
DaomSlayer wrote:
I think the magicless Ranger is a really good 2 level dip now. Heck, my Ranger/Rogue archer would be willing to swap spells for some maneuvers....
I think its funny how they really hammer home the "don't mess with the spells", and their first example completely messes with the spells. (Yes I get the difference... still funny)
DaomSlayer wrote:
Tempest_Stormwind wrote:
DaomSlayer wrote:
Here's Crawford on Second Wind, FWIW:
"@JeremyECrawford: Errata is for text that is incomplete, confusing, or inaccurate. Second Wind doesn't qualify. @mikemearls"
DaomSlayer wrote:
DaomSlayer wrote:
It's weird to see people on the same side of an issue see different amounts of 4E influence. One sees a near purge. One sees the game shot through with it.
I think it's not an oversight or a failure to take into account certain types of players or styles. I think (from writings like RAF & some of Mearls' earlier articles) that the design goal was for the classes to feel like iconic representations of themselves. I don't know that gamist or realist played a significant role in that.
I mean, I'm just speculating. I don't know one way or the other. But if you look at their designs, that seems to be the principle that would produce a lot of them - and it's sort of ephemeral: feel.
Whether they could or should have made different decisions or had different priorities I leave aside. Largely because I'm in a similar boat to everyone else. The game is good. A lot of the stuff feels right and fun. I have some minor complaints but I'm largely happy.
One thing I find confusing was Rodney's explaination for Favored Enemy :
-
Favored Enemy was intentionally designed to provide no combat bonus, because the ranger’s strength in combat should not rely solely on the discretion of the Dungeon Master or the circumstances of the adventure.
But Foe Slayer is based on Favored Enemy. You are still relying on the DM to include these creatures.
I guess he, as well as other designers, failed to realise the Ranger's other abilities before making that statement.
ScuroNotte wrote:
Yeah, and if you've been waiting for 20th level to finally be "strong in combat", you've been playing wrong. And for a long time, evidently. Unless you started at, like, late 19th level, maybe...
DaomSlayer wrote:
pukunui wrote:
pukunui wrote:
At some point one has to realize that this IS just a game and that it's not inteneded to simulate reality to the fullest extent. The limitations on carrying Poultices is gamist, yes, but so is the requirement on short-rest Maneuvers to name another non-magical limitation. For someone who can swing a weapon nearly infinite times per day, he then gets "tired" performing a handful of Swing Weapon + Extra action? Gimme a break. But in the grand scheme of things, it's not that "troubling". It's a game-balancing factor and that's all. It's no different than 3e/v3.5 Stunning Fist feat which was limited to a daily limit or Rage (v3.5 and 5E) or a Fighter's Action Surge or Second Wind for 4E's martial daily powers. NONE of these model reality in any real form or shape but there they are and people are still playing the game with fun and enthusiasm.
DaomSlayer wrote:
SleepsInTraffic wrote:
AaronOfBarbaria wrote:
Diffan wrote:
DaomSlayer wrote:
Tempest_Stormwind wrote:
I never claimed that Foe Slayer is thee Ranger strength.
My only point was that Favored Enemy is a noncombat ability according to the writers. But then make it a combative ability with Foe Slayer.
I prefer Favored Enemy as a noncombative ability and play it as so. As per another poster, I renamed it Creature Lore to better describe its function
bawylie wrote:
pukunui wrote:
1) it's not a mistake, you just don't like it. HUGE difference there.
2) just because you can't imagine an in-game narrative does not mean others can't.
3) if you don't like the way is written change it in your games but don't assume your "version" is somehow instantly better.
DaomSlayer wrote:
AaronOfBarbaria wrote:
ScuroNotte wrote:
ChrisCarlson wrote:
ScuroNotte wrote:
ScuroNotte wrote:
Sorclocks and Sorcadins just got a whole lot funner to play with the Favored Soul. I'd prefer +1 hp/level like draconic and full spell list swap instead of a handful of domain spells.
ZHDarkstar wrote:
cowleymen wrote:
Another suggestions for variant classes.
- The archivist (from "Heroers of Horror"), a wizards with a book of divine spells. Why not to add truename game mechanic?
- The crusader (from "Tome of Batlle: book of nine swords". A variant paladin, but more offensive, and more anti-nerfing thant bluffer, with some counter-spells tricks.
- Jester: Bard variant, without magic music but with some tricks about illusory magic, offensive insults to break concentration and acrobatics movement, maybe some ki maneuver. It could be used by DM to be the boss' bodyguard.
- Gladiator (from Arthas): Fighter with some ki maneuvers. Maybe the gladiator was one of the first variant classes
- Sohei. Paladin variant with ki frenzy and some ki maneuvers, and even incarnum soulmelds.
- Knight. Really I have many ideas for this, maybe it ought to be its own class.
- Assasin. Rogue with shadow misteries...(spell-like powers by shadowmancer from "Tome of Magic: Pact, Shadow & truename").
DemoMonkey wrote:
Best favored soul: thoughts?
Life, War, Nature, Tempest, and Light all look like a lot of fun, for different reasons.
EDIT: Also knowledge and trickery, come to think of it, and I am just realizing that I listed all the domains. Hm.
ClockworkNecktie wrote:
Hi folks,
Please remember to stay on topic and treat your fellow community members with the politeness that you would expect yourself.
Thanks,
Monica
Trickery domain would pair nicely with Arcane Trickster in a FS 8/AT 12 build. Just grab AT spells without DCs to mitigate MAD for better social skills.
Death domain is a way to relive some of the Dread Necromancer feel, but would probably require changing the 6th/14th level abilities to something more appropos.
Knowledge domain could make for an interesting multiclass with Lore Bards. FS 6/Bard 14 trades high level generic bard features for part of the Valor college martial prowess, metamagic, and sorcery points. You still have full spell slot progression and access to more versatile low level spells. Trickery would also pair well with Lore Bards for those who want a more social control warrior.
Once the Favored Soul becomes officially published, I expect the Wild Mage will become an even more endangered species in the AL setting. So much MC potential in this subclass.
ClockworkNecktie wrote:
Universal subclasses are more appealing to me, but this is interesting. I can see the point in refining some or all of the class features to suit your table.
Vancian spellcasting was there from the first playtest, for example, as much as I (and arguably the majority of players) didn't like it. I can't recall when the Fly spell first showed up, but it was level 3 when it did.
One character that I came up with during the early playtest and really wanted a chance to play was a human draconic sorcerer gish: high strength and charisma, heavy armor and a big weapon, tossing out fireballs and chopping off limbs. I was kind of disappointed with the un-gishiness of the draconic sorcerer at release, but the favored soul might actually work well for that concept. Start with a level of fighter (for heavy armor, fighting style, and more HP), grab Polearm Master as a variant human, and then go straight Favored Soul (War domain), with maybe one more level of fighter tossed in for Action Surge. Twinned Spell means I can cast all those buffs on myself and a buddy, and Haste means that I can keep up with a straight fighter in attacks when I need to (and give him an extra one to boot).
Miladoon wrote:
The description of hp loss is explicitly stated to be described "in different ways" by different DMs. The remainder of the paragraph goes on to detail one single method of describing damage, not THE method of describing it. That the paragraph paints that method as the typical description in no way states, explicitly or implicitly, that the last 50% of hp ARE wounds. It states merely that such a narration is typical. Whether those last 50% of hps, or any part of any percentage of hps, are physical harm or not remains entirely the purview of the DM.
Also, physical signs of hp loss are not wounds. Wounds actually impair the wounded, but hp loss narrated as a slash across the arm doesn't affect the operation of that arm.
Page 42 was filled with examples, not limitations, and it still exists in the 5e DMG (in a more simplified form).
DaomSlayer wrote:
Diffan wrote:
pukunui wrote:
Diffan wrote:
ZHDarkstar wrote:
We’ve removed content from this thread because of a violation of the Code of Conduct.
You can review the Code here: http://company.wizards.com/conduct
Please keep your posts polite, on-topic, and refrain from making personal attacks. You are welcome to disagree with one another but please do so respectfully and constructively.
Remember, a community is a joint effort of all those involved, and while we want intelligent meaningful and productive banter to ensue we also need it to be polite and considerate of others.
Thank you for your time and support as we continue to try and make a great community for everyone.
JRutterbush wrote:
Miladoon wrote:
Macv12 wrote:
Even though I'm still hesitant about the balance of universal subclasses, I think the concept merits further discussion. However, I think that right now would be a good point for the community to establish some standard terminology when discussing the subject of 5e class modification. These are the definitions that I submit for community approval.
- Subclass: doesn't replace base class features, but provides specialization and differentiation. Ex: Artificer/Favored Soul
- Class Feature Replacement (CFR): replaces base class features to enact fundamental changes to playstyle without disrupting subclass compatibility. Ex: Spell-less Ranger
- Universal Replacement (UR): theoretical system of CFR compatible with all classes; closest thing to existing rules would be races, backgrounds, and feats.
I think once we can get on the same vernacular page, we'll be able to have clearer discussions about class modification without having numerous names for the same type of modification.
Edit: I know 3e had ACFs, but I think a new edition deserves a new term. I figured CFR would be appropos after the first line of the Spell-less Ranger section made reference to the "class feature replacement process," whereas Favored Soul uses the term "subclass" instead.
pukunui wrote:
Thoughts - Favored Soul is actually looking pretty bad past level 10. Blade Warlock gets to add his +Cha to damage, similar to a Paladin's Divine Smite. Bard gets to steal the paladin's weaponry smites and/or a ranger's bow spells. Clerics that use weapons continue to improve using buffs and Divine Strike. Moon Druid's forms continue to improve with Elemental Forms. The Favored Soul? They stop getting anything related to weapon damage.
All the other gishy full casters have options at that level 11 milestone to significantly improve their weapon damage. The Favored Soul? At best, we're looking at the option to Quicken Cast alongside an attack a few more times a day, and that's with Somatic and Material component issues. Make no mistake, though, Sorcery Points are a precious resource in high demand. We may end up seeing people scouring high level slots to make room for utilities and lots of quickened spells.
There's not a lot of 6+ spells that really help or buff weapon users...
ZHDarkstar wrote:
Personally I would swap the entire Sorcerer spell list for the Cleric spell list for the Favored Soul. I played a Favored Soul all the way to 20th level in 3.5 and focused on buffs, healing and summoning. Blasting was never really a part of it except for the occasional Flame Strike. Other than that I think the Favored Soul is pretty good.
Side note: DaomSlayer's list of things he liked about 5e vs. 4e is pretty spot on for me, but minus the arrogance and taunting. Honestly it is almost like he is actually a 4e fanboy and wants a backlash against those rules to get more 4e stuff back in the game.
Well... good luck with the Universal Subclass! I would never use it and think it would be impossible to balance. Of course if it works for you and your group, that's awesome and more power to you. 
Some classes have several base class features (Monk), while other classes are limited to very few (Wizard). Which makes me wonder if the devs made some assumptions about what is balanced or what is not, or perhaps they threw the notion of balance out the window.
Glad that at least one person liked my idea of expanding the 5e community vernacular to differentiate the types of class modifications. Hopefully someone from the dev staff will see these posts and make these terms official.
I'm confused as to the origin of the USC concept. Is that something that was in previous editions? I'm only familiar with 3e mechanics, so I may need to be caught up to speed in terms of what to expect out of the concept at hand. If I had some previous edition data of the mechanic in question, I could find a starting point for conversion balance.
Before I go into the details of the mods I have in mind to bring some old 3e classes up to 5e, I have another definition for the community's approval
- Alternate Class Kit (ACK): a set of CFR that alter base class features to the point that new associated subclasses are required for balance; would still count as instance of original base class for the purpose of interacting with other rule mechanics like feats, magic items, and multiclassing.
The ACK is how I've been thinking about converting the following 3e classes:
- Beguiler
- Dread Necromancer
- Warmage
- Duskblade
- Hexblade
- Enlightened Fist
- Sacred Fist
As you can see, bringing back the level 1 gish is likely going to require a robust set of changes to existing class options.
I believe the USC concept was thrown into the forums during Next playtesting. I am not aware of any such system existing in D&Ds prior publishings.
I also want to point out that a USC system is not just applying one subclass throughout the class gallery. The system hosts as many subclasses as you can imagine. The fact that they can plug into any base class is the beauty. Here is an idea of thematic expression using one universial subclass, Commander, plugged into 5 base classes
Fighter/Commander = Your typical Warlord
Wizard/Commander = A Warmage
Rogue/Commander = Prince of Thieves
Cleric/Commander = High Marshall of Kragyar's Hammer
Ranger/Commander = Provost of Loreilanai the Elder Forest
Then again the same five classes with another USC.
Fighter/Healer = Pararescue
Wizard/Healer = White Mage
Rogue/Healer = Surgeon
Cleric/Healer = Divine Mender
Ranger/Healer = Green Warden
Plug any of these USCs into any base class
Elemental Disciple, Planeswalker, Thief, Dragon Knight, Brawler etc. The USCs become universal because they are not associated with base class features. Your characters are free to float around in the dark matter of your mind, not be tethered to a developers notion.
Add a background and the table is flooded with amazing character concepts .
ZHDarkstar wrote:
/points to recent Unearthed Arcana pdf. This is a 5E approach that also uses the 5E feats as an option.
5E uses "Base class" and "Subclass" the way you illustrated. Do you say that 5E uses 4Es role/source grid?
Kinda. I want my White Mage to have more mechanical function than casting wizard spells and using the healer feat as it is written. A specific subclass not only adds beef to that concept, but eliminates the extra baggage from a subclass that does not fit your concept. For instance, a Ranger/Beast Master/Healer may of chosen Beastmaster because Hunter for sure didn't fit the player's concept. They then settle for Beastmaster. The good news is, a USC called Beastmaster, can be used by Rangers, and Fighters, and Rogues, and Wizards...etc. And, if you use feats, you still have the option to get a feat/ASI without spending that costly allotment on something you pick up in a USC.
SleepsInTraffic wrote:
ClockworkNecktie wrote:
arnwolf666 wrote:
SleepsInTraffic wrote:
Miladoon wrote:
Tempest_Stormwind wrote:
pukunui wrote:
Anyone looking for ideas of universal subclasses should go see what Radiance RPG did, imo.
13th age, 5e, and Radiance all have something i enjoy.
I think I might have figured out my ACK for converting the Blade casters. While I haven't decided all of necessary changes to the base class, the Arcane Paladin ACK will cover the Duskblade, Hexblade, and Mystic Fire Knight subclasses. Here a couple of the changes that I had in mind, but I'm always open to suggestions.
- Spellcasting changes from prepared to spontaneous. Use Warlock chart for determining number of cantrips/spells known. Spellcasting focus proficiency is lost.
- Lay on Hands is replaced with access to cantrips from subclass spell list at 1st level. Leveled spellcasting still doesn't come online until 2nd level.
- Divine Smite becomes Arcane Strike, dealing d6's of force damage and no increased damage bonus vs undead/fiends.
LordTwig wrote:
ZHDarkstar wrote:
You're guy's USC ideas sound great. But what they don't sound like is 5e. And that's unfortunate, IMO.
Yes, we all know there is an eastern sea route to D&D. I will set sail toward the west and find a route to D&D that way.
Tchus!
Miladoon, the only way your plan would work is to rebalance all classes into Type 1 classes, which is harder to do with the martial classes. The USC concept would have worked better during the playtest when every class was a Type 3 class. If you can figure out a way to make the Type 1 conversion work, I'll be impressed. Until then, I think focusing on subclasses, CFRs, and ACKs will help hone our skills in creating balanced class modifications. If you look at your USC project as a set of ACKs that share subclasses, you should hopefully start to see how improving your grasp of the individual components will increase your chances of finding a way to put them all together in a functional manner.
ChrisCarlson, 5e is frequently referred to as the DIY edition. Therefore, using WotC's design guidelines to create class mods that would have been feasible during the playtest sounds very much in the spirit of 5e. It's just going to be a lot trickier to pull off effectively with the current subclass paradigm. Who knows how 5e subclasses would have turned out if this was suggested during the playtest?
Thread has taken a productive an interesting turn. I'm lurking.
bawylie wrote:
ZHDarkstar wrote:
ChrisCarlson wrote:
Just like letting a barbarian take a fighter subclass (hello, Champion) could have unintended broken consequences, IMO. That's why.
ChrisCarlson wrote:
I think a universal subclass is a feasible idea. It puts me in mind of 4e's rendition of spellfire as a class you had to MC into.
Diffan wrote:
pukunui wrote:
AaronOfBarbaria wrote:
Wouldn't it be easier to just upgrade backgrounds to themes with level based benefits?
MechaPilot wrote:
Diffan wrote:
Tempest_Stormwind wrote:
Diffan wrote: