Tumgik
#5.5e
raeynbowboi · 9 months
Text
How to Play as Apollo in DnD 5.5e (UA)
Tumblr media
I've built Apollo once before but he was a build I really struggled with because his set-up had too many variables, and he pulled from too many different spell lists. While I provided two ways to build Apollo using the 5th Edition rules, both options left something out of his kit, failing to capture the full breadth of Apollo's abilities.
This build is using the rules from the new UA playtest rules for DnD 5.5 Edition (because nobody is still calling this 5th Edition, WoTC) released in Playtest Packet 6 on June 29th, 2023. The new rules made it much easier to build someone like Apollo with much greater ease.
Tumblr media
PROTECTOR AASIMAR (+2 CHA, +1 DEX) NOBLE BACKGROUND (History, Persuasion) CHAOTIC GOOD ALIGNMENT
For his race, Apollo had to be either a Variant Human or an Aasimar. Aasimar gain the Light Cantrip, speak Celestial, gain a Healing Touch feature, 60 feet of Darkvision, resist Radiant and Necrotic damage, and he can take on a Celestial Revelation in the form of a Radiant Soul.
Gods are the highest form of nobility, and he's the illegitimate bastard of a King, so we'll call him a Noble for History and Persuasion. Apollo is the god of mathematics, and the muses that serve him govern things like history and geography, which I'd file under either History or Nature checks. Apollo is also regarded for being a charming deity, though most of his love interests end up not being into him and trying to run away from him. So, while I'll give proficiency with Persuasion but not expertise.
Apollo's official DnD alignment is listed as Chaotic Good.
Tumblr media
BARD COLLEGE OF VALOR
ATHLETICS, MEDICINE, & PERFORMANCE LYRE, DRUM, & REED PIPE SHORTBOW & SHORTSWORD
Honestly, Apollo works with any of the four Bardic Colleges present in the Playtest material. He is known for his charms, he's quite knowledgeable, and he's the closest thing to a God of Dance in the Greek pantheon not including the Muses. However, I went with Valor because it gives him Extra Attack and Battle Magic. I gave him a shortbow because Longbows were invented in the middle ages and he's from Ancient Greece, but if all you care about is damage, then Longbow becomes available through the College of Valor as well.
OPTIONAL MULTICLASS
RANGER CONCLAVE OF THE HUNTER
Whether you want a 1 level dip for Hunter's Mark or are playing by Mulligan rules of two classes at a time, Ranger levels make Apollo better with his bow. There's also a few Ranger-exclusive spells Apollo can't pick up as a pure Bard like Conjure Barrage that more Ranger levels would allow Apollo pick up if the player really wanted them.
WARLOCK PACT OF THE BLADE
Any Blade Pact Warlock can choose to swing with CHA, allowing Apollo to prioritize his Charisma stat over his Dexterity. Dexterity is still useful, but if you're hoping for more feats, this gives Apollo a reason to neglect his Dexterity.
FIGHTER
As with the Ranger, the added Fighting Style and Weapon Mastery allows Apollo to do more with his bow than he could as a pure Bard. Champion would allow Apollo to crit more often, showcasing his masterful marksmanship, but Battle Master would let him show off his more strategic side.
Tumblr media
STATS
POINT BUY STR 10 DEX 14 CON 14 INT 10 WIS 12 CHA 16
STANDARD ARRAY STR 10 DEX 16 CON 13 INT 8 WIS 12 CHA 16
LEVEL 20 (Standard Array with Resilient (CON) feat) STR 10 DEX 20 CON 14 INT 8 WIS 12 CHA 20
Tumblr media
SPELLCASTING
At 1st Level, we'll choose the Divine Spell List to prioritize giving Apollo access to Healing, Radiant damage, and Divination spells. Later, at 10th Level, we'll get access to fire spells and archery spells from the Arcane and Primal spell lists as well. Let's look at Apollo's spell list at level 20. For this list, I'll be assuming that Apollo is a pure Bard.
C Booming Blade, Firebolt, Light, Sacred Flame, Spare the Dying, Vicious Mockery 1 Burning Hands, Cure Wounds, Guiding Bolt 2 Augury, Scorching Ray, Shatter 3 Aura of Vitality, Daylight, Fireball, Spirit Guardians 4 Divination, Locate Creature 5 Contagion, Flame Strike, Mass Cure Wounds, Swift Quiver 6 Harm, Heal, Sunbeam 7 Fire Storm, Resurrection 8 Sunburst 9 Power Word Heal, Power Word Kill
Tumblr media
BUILD PROGRESSION
At 1st Level, we choose the Divine Spell list and get 2 cantrips and 4 spells. We'll start with Sacred Flame and Spare the Dying, along with Cure Wounds, Detect Magic, Guiding Bolt, and Inflict Wounds. We also get a free feat at 1st level, and we'll pick up Tough to boost our HP to be more appropriate for a god.
At 2nd Level we get Exptertise in 2 skills. We'll choose Performance as the god of Music and Medicine as the god of Healing.
At 3rd Level, we'll choose the College of Valor for the reasons stated above, though Lore would be my second choice. If you go with the College of Lore, add Animal Handling, Intimidation, and Perception to his skill list.
4th Level comes with the first ASI or Feat option. While boosting our CHA and DEX is important and worth prioritizing, at some point during the build, we'll take Resilient (CON) to boost our CON from 13 to 14 and gain proficiency with CON saving throws, keeping the god of pestilence and medicine from getting sick as easily.
6th Level grants Apollo access to Extra Attack.
Then at 8th Level, Apollo gets another choice of ASI or a Feat.
9th Level gives Apollo expertise in two more skills and we'll add Athletics and History to his expertise skills.
At 10th Level, Apollo can start learning Arcane and Primal Spells as well, letting him pick up spells like Fireball and Swift Quiver.
With 12th Level comes another choice of an ASI or a Feat.
Our final subclass feature comes online at 14th Level, when Apollo gains the Battle Magic feature, letting him make a weapon attack as a bonus action after he casts a spell.
Another ASI or Feat becomes available at Level 16.
19th Level gives us our final ASI or Feat, and the last chance to pick up Resilient (CON)
At level 20, Apollo gets Words of Creation, granting him access to the 9th level spells Power Word Heal and Power Word Kill.
Tumblr media
APPROPRIATE FEATS
If you rolled for stats and you got really lucky or your DM hands out feats as rewards, here's a little collection of feats Apollo would get some use out of.
Athlete
Fighting Style: Archery (If Multi-classed Fighter or Ranger)
Healer
Musician
Prodigy
Resilient (CON)
Sharpshooter (requires Longbow proficiency)
Skilled
Tough
War Caster (if not College of Valor Bard)
24 notes · View notes
queen0fkingss · 1 year
Text
Okay so here's my question: WHY NOT sort the new Monster Manual for 5.5e (it's not 5e fucking fight me) by CHALLENGE RATING instead of alphabetical order?
I would love nothing more than to have all the monsters in a certain challenge rating grouped together for easy access when building leveled encounters. I'd be happy to have all the CR 5 monsters and enemies all in one spot to easily flip through instead of having to flip all over the god damn book to find something!!!
Also! changing the monk's Ki points to "Spirit" points is ARGUABLY WORSE! Thanks I hate it! I am foaming at the mouth!
4 notes · View notes
leaslichoma · 2 years
Text
Wizards of the Coast has announced a new evolution of D&D with a playtest material, code name: One D&D | And other news.
For those not yet in the know on tumblr, Wizards of the Coast (WotC) has announced a new ‘evolution’ of D&D: One D&D. Wizards of the coast claims that this is not a new edition, and that it will be backwards compatible with certain 5e products. One D&D is not the only major news for D&D today; WotC has announced several new books to be released (Including one for the campaign setting Dragonlance) , and a few days ago has released a book for the Spelljammer campaign setting.
Official general news/summary video: https://youtu.be/XGT6kn_DYJM
youtube
General announcement page: https://www.dndbeyond.com/posts/1313-wizards-presents-recap-catch-up-on-all-the-d-d
Link to official page for One D&D: https://www.dndbeyond.com/one-dnd .
In accordance with the announcement, Wizards of the Coast has released a playtest document with changes to the game. It is meant to be added on to a 5e game.
One D&D FAQ page: https://www.dndbeyond.com/posts/1310-faq-one-d-d-rules-d-d-digital-and-physical-digital
Direct link to playtest material/ Unearthed Arcana: https://media.dndbeyond.com/compendium-images/one-dnd/character-origins/CSWCVV0M4B6vX6E1/UA2022-CharacterOrigins.pdf?icid_source=house-ads&icid_medium=crosspromo&icid_campaign=playtest1
There are also a few videos of interest that have been released.
Trailer for One D&D: 
youtube
Unearthed Arcana/ Playtest video:
youtube
How to playtest One D&D:
youtube
While there may have been something I’ve forgetten, that includes the most important news of today, and I have links to the most important stuff.
6 notes · View notes
onion-souls · 1 year
Note
Wait what the fuck happened with WOTC and race mixing?
It's a mess, and actively changing, but WOTC recently held a D&D Creator Summit and one of the major talking points to come out of it was the notion that half-elves and half-orcs were "inherently racist" (said by Jeremy Crawford) and would not be included in the upcoming One D&D, the upcoming 6th edition/5.5e/IT'S JUST A RULES TWEAK DON'T FREAK OUT.
Many people found it odd, because D&D was already rolling back differences between race/ancestry/species and putting in a lot of work to humanize orcs, and many people with mixed identities found the notion that their obviously-coded fantasy-counterparts are problematic to be itself offensive. A few wondered if they were going to swing the other direction on orcs and make them more monstrous, as happened with the 5e Gnolls, which has some decidedly off racial politics if you're viewing it through that lens but you have to have monsters in your fantasy monster-fighting game. The most cynical and therefore accurate reading it that they only have a problem with half-elves and -orcs because they are not part of D&D's product identity, and the more unique/trademarkable mixed-ancestries like Goliaths, Tieflings, Genasi, and whatever this Ardling shit is will remain untouched.
Though after the flap of controversy D&D issued a statement that says that they never intended to remove mixed race characters and instead want to mechanically represent them in other ways such as backgrounds or modifications to other species (in Pathfinder 2e, for example, humans can be modified with feats to represent non-human ancestry). But most people found this to be retroactive ass-covering that doesn't exactly square with the rather inflammatory initial statements about half-elves and half-orcs. For example, maybe they should have just said that since humans will have this initial mechanical "Feat Slot," we're going to use it to represent the human tendency to hybridize with other species and get mutated by the outer planes (humans are cosmic tofu), and open up a wider and less repetitive design space for species/ancestries.
As with all WOTC controversies, this issue is still developing, being clarified, and we all know it's going to be dropped by May and replaced with a new controversy about their new botique VTT app using stolen code and exploitative labor or something
126 notes · View notes
Text
Honestly OneDND or 6e or 5.5e or whatever just looks like a really nerfed and arbitrarily low powered version of 5e so far and that is just not very interesting to me.
115 notes · View notes
Note
What are your thoughts concerning the OGL 1.1 possibilities, and your work? Will you stick with 5/5.5e, or be looking at a new system?
Hoo Boy... this is gonna be a can of worms.
I have had the chance to actually read the OGL 1.1 (or what is to my knowledge the most recently sent out version), and I will link that here for anyone who wants to read the Actual Document, instead of sensationalized headlines and youtube reactions.
There's certainly some stuff n there that will be a pain in the ass - attaching a copy of the OGL to the end of all my content, and Making sure to document things better incase by some miracle I ever start making money off of this stuff. But buy-in large, it's not going to affect me, and I think that there is a lot of misinformation and panic going around the community, because so many of the people blowing the whistle aren't familiar with how to read legal documents, or haven't had the chance to read the new OGL for themselves.
I could be wrong on that, and I'm not coming out in support of the changes or anything. But after reviewing the document with the help of a legal eye, I don't think it is going to be as world-ending as people are passing around.
For one, a lot of people misunderstand what the OGL actually is. It is not a blanket document that covers all content. While it does dissolve the old OGL, it does not dissolve the Fan Content Policy, which is what most homebrew produced by individuals actually falls under. It also isn't the only License Agreement WotC issues - it's just the default. Despite the reactions of some third party publishers like Kobold Press, there is nothing stopping those who bring in more $750k gross a year (because it is $750k, not $75k, like I have seen thrown around in a few places) from reaching out for an individualized, custom license, and the wording of the new OGL actually encourages that. The big 25% in royalties is primarily a tactic to force that, actually. And even then, royalties are only paid on revenue beyond $750K, so if you bring in $750,001, you would owe exactly $0.25, on the $1 extra you made. WotC is also giving publishers a full year without any royalties, while they figure out their own licensing agreements or change models - it's not an immediate demand for money.
The other big concern I see going around is that this OGL effectively gives WotC ownership of any content produced under it. It explicitly does not. The clause people are up in arms about gives WotC a non-negotiable License to content created under the OGL, but it expressly leaves copywrite and ownership in the hands of the creator. that's a big distinction. While WotC may not be require to pay anyone royalties for content published under the OGL, they are required by law to credit appropriately, which opens them up for a whole host of legal trouble if they try to steal everyone's content like is being rallied against. If their goal was simply to steal our content, they would not have included this distinction
This same clause (or actually a substantially more broad one, which does give WotC ownership and Copyright), is actually already a part of the UELA on DMsguild and DriveThru RPG. While the wording is scary, and I would certainly like to see WotC better define the terms and intent here, the reality is that such clauses are pretty standard fair in situations like this, and primarily used by companies to prevent frivolous lawsuits from every creator who publishes something similar to what the license holder already had in the pipleline.
It's important to remember that this OGL is only as strong as WotC's intent and ability to enforce it. Hasbro is a big company, with a lot of weight to throw around, but that weight also gets in the way. They aren't going to come after individual creators for the same reason that Bethesda doesn't viciously hunt down everyone who mods skyrim - it's just not profitable to do so. This OGL is primarily targeted at big name publishers who have been abusing the lack of constraints on the Old OGL to make everything from full sourcebooks to royalty free merchandise and tv shows. (I big reason we are seeing it now, in fact, is that the critical roll TV show we were supposed to get from netflix is locked up in a legal battle over this).
At the end of the day, I'm probably going to receive a lot of hate for not jumping aboard the bandwagon here to roast WotC on a spit. But I am also not giving them my support. There are plenty of things I don't like about this update: It's incredibly vague in some areas, and especially does a poor job of defining what constitutes use of licensed or unlicensed materials. For example: If I reference a core spell not included in the SRD, or put it on the spell list for my warlock patron, am I violating the OGL? The Terms in this OGL would suggest so, but I highly doubt that is the intent, since that ruling would prevent creators from including things that encourage people to buy more content form WotC.
My main point here is that I think a lot more people need to actually read the document, and that I don't see this as any sort of game-ending event for D&D. But I've also seen this shit coming since I started, and personally built my "Brand" and business in such a way that the new OGL is going to have very little affect on me or my content, so I may be incredibly biased. Mostly, I just want people to do their own research, rather than jumping on the bandwagon of cancel culture. This could potentially have a lot of far reaching ramifications, but I don't think they are the ones people are up in arms about.
And if anyone thinks I'm the devil for asking them to read and form their own opinions...  Well the 15th century catholic church would agree.
36 notes · View notes
dicesmasher · 3 months
Text
5e: Thoughts on the Yo-Yoing Problem
Yo-yoing: Bouncing up and down from 0HP
The D&D YouTuber Pack Tactics recently released a very interesting video about yo-yoing, the the ineffectiveness of a common homebrew rule to remedy it. It got me thinking about how I can approach the problem differently.
Yo-yoing is when a PC has been brought to 0HP in combat, is brought back on their feet by a healer feeding them very little healing, usually with something like Healing Word (1d4+spellmod) and immediately gets knocked down again on the monster's next turn, potentially leading to a cycle of going up and down like a yo-yo. This is problematic for two main reasons. a) It is not fun for anyone involved and b) it quickly breaks immersion when you try to in-universe rationalise how someone can be repeatedly brought within an inch of their life and it creates what amounts to an inconvience. There are no real consequences for dropping to zero (unless you use the optional injury rules in the DMG, which nobody does cause they suck).
A common homebrew fix for this problem is to introduce more consequences for dropping to 0HP, incentivising the players to avoid doing so in the first place. Pack Tactics focuses on the idea of adding levels of exhaustion when you go down, though they focus specifically on the vanilla 5e exhaustion mechanics, while I would rather use the new exhaustion system where there are 10 levels of exhaustion, each applying a cumulative -1 to all your d20 rolls.
Regardless, Pack Tactics points out that this doesn't really address the problem because some characters are going to drop to 0HP anyway, especially obligate melee fighters like paladins and barbarians. Implementing more consequences for dropping to 0HP may help to fix immersion, but it does not stop yo-yoing or make fights any more fun, especially for the melee fighters who rely on their d20 rolls to be effective, while the casters can broadly ignore exhaustion by forcing enemies to make saving throws instead.
Pack Tactics suggests that preventing yo-yoing may actually lie in buffing healing to keep up with damaging effects in battle, also citing potential upcoming changes to 5.5e, where many healing spells are doing up to twice the healing that they did in original 5e.
It's worth noting that I think the optimiser's perspective that Pack Tactics provides to RPG discourse is extremely valuable, but I often disagree with their conclusions as I do not approach the game from an optimising standpoint, and am less concerned with optimisation and more with immersion and fun through roleplaying and storytelling.
I'm personally skeptical of making healing more powerful, seeing the massive worldbuilding implications it already has - I think another way to potentially address yo-yoing is to flip around, and make encounters EASIER. Now, I know 5e is already known for being much more forgiving than other editions, but if easier encounters were combined with harsh consequences for dropping to 0HP, this would make dropping to 0HP more rare, but more scary and dramatic when it does happen. Monsters should be more willing to hit downed PCs and force them to fail death saves. Some animalistic monsters may attempt to drag away and eat unconscious PCs.
Besides, combat should be more than two sides trying to pile damage on each other. Combat provides opportunities for roleplaying, story beats, creativity and acquisition of material and informational resources. I think easier combats may open up opportunities as the players are no longer concerned with optimising their character builds.
I will discuss more ideas around homebrew dying mechanics in another post, but I must leave for now. Thanks for reading.
youtube
3 notes · View notes
actionsurges · 2 years
Note
They're making 5.5e because they saw you winning too much. Need to change the rules a little.
aw fuck, i can't believe they've done this
29 notes · View notes
cowboycharmac · 9 months
Text
in dnd 5.5e theres a new cantrip called cocking grasp. is that anything
2 notes · View notes
keplercryptids · 2 years
Text
it's pretty funny that probably when dnd 5.5e comes out, I'll be starting campaign 2 and likely incorporating the new stuff
9 notes · View notes
foxqueen-katarian · 2 years
Text
Looking at the new playtest material Wizards dropped today I don’t hate it.
I need to know more about how the spell lists are going to work, like, do all Arcane casters have access to all of the Arcane spells, same for Divine and Primal casters?
If so that takes some of the flavor out of playing a Cleric vs a Paladin, or a Wizard vs a Sorcerer (also there is a notable absence of Eldritch Blast on the Arcane cantrip list so is that a Warlock only Cantrip that you get when taking the class orrrr????), it also will expand the Ranger spell list but (it feels like) at the cost of some of the Druids versatility. Like the added size options in the race selection more for the flavor than anything else, and the instruction on how to create a character of mixed lineage. Also liked for the races that had them, that there was a non-stat based reason to pick one subrace over another. The custom background builder seems like it could be good, would need to see it in action to know one way or the other how it feels to play though.
Overall this feels more like a 5.5e update than a 6e overhaul, want to look at any class changes they plan on making before feel more confidant about it.
4 notes · View notes
raeynbowboi · 11 months
Text
Fixing the Wizard’s Spell Creation in OneDnD
Tumblr media
I will be the first to say that when I read the new system for Wizards to create their own spells, I was in love with the idea. It sounded like so much fun. Until I realized just how broken it could get. Forecage for free? Wall of Force? Darkness that only effects enemies? The wizard’s spell creation as it is right now is in serious jeopardy of wildly unbalancing the game, and is also stealing everything that isn’t nailed down from Metamagic. BUT, I do like the idea of Wizards creating their own spells. I think it’s a fun idea. So, how do we salvage this fun idea while also protecting the game’s balance? We pivot. Rather than breaking existing spells by removing casting components, give us tables of options to effectively sculpt new spells from these tables. So like... say I want to create a new necromancy spell. Step 1: spell school. It's a necromancy spell. Step 2: components? Let's say you need Verbal, Somatic, and Material components. What material?  You need a corpse, pile of bones, or an animated skeleton or zombie that is friendly toward you. Step 3: Range/AoE. This one targets one creature within 90 feet. What does the spell do? You use a dead body, pile of bones, or an animated skeleton or zombie that you control and break them apart to create a lance of bone and flesh. You then hurl that lance toward an enemy, dealing 4d8 Necrotic damage. Then you give it a name, level, and work with your DM to decide who can have access to such a spell. Is it just for Wizards, or can you teach this spell to Warlocks too? This is Goring Lance, a 4th Level Necromancy spell available to Wizards and Warlocks. And that's just off the top of my head. Make creating spells a way for your players to do something new instead of breaking spells that already exist. Have the tables to help without turning every single spell into the same exact thing. Have a way for players to create new non-damaging spells too. Maybe balance it with like a point system so that the more powerful a new spell is, the most costly it is to create, so your party isn't just making 400 new 9th level spells. Giving us a means of building brand new spells not only better fits the idea of the wizard inventing spells, but it also gets the wizard's hand out of the sorcerer metamagic cookie jar.
13 notes · View notes
musherum · 2 years
Text
havent had the chance to read the shit going on w/ dnd 6e/5.5e/whatever-the-fuck-e, anyone feel like telling me whats up??
5 notes · View notes
thessalian · 2 years
Text
Thess vs 5.5e Playtesting
So WotC has released some of the upcoming changes in D&D 5.5e for playtesting.
Even from what I’m seeing at the moment? Oh HELL no.
Some of the ideas are kind of interesting, and I’d already been thinking about incorporating some stuff into my own character creation rules (I’ve been playtesting this on Saturday shenanigans). But everything else feels ... like it could get complicated.
Of course, when I made the announcement in my group’s Discord chat, I did get a comment of “I get where you’re coming from, especially mid campaign when the the full text isn’t out until 2024, but I don’t see anything overly complicated”.
First of all, thanks for triggering my imposter syndrome. What I meant, and thought I’d clarified, was that I just want the basic framework and space for “This is the DM’s call”, because crunchy’s not my thing. It’s not that I couldn’t understand if I was motivated to do so; I just don’t want to burden myself with additional crunch because that’s not how I play.
Second ... we’ve been playing this campaign since 2017. The rate we’re going, we’ll still be on Campaign 1 in 2024.
Third ... I see the complications just fine, thank you. Giving dwarves Tremorsense as it is currently not-so-fully described in the RAW is going to end up with a lot of discussion during playtesting as we try to figure out exactly what it means and what you can do with it as powergamers try to push it to its furthest combat-help extent and a lot of DMs try to veto some of the most OP shit for various reasons (some because common sense, others because they take a DM vs Player mentality). Even when we have more solid rules for Tremorsense in combat, DMs and players are both going to take liberties and if I was to adopt it, I’d have to sit down and figure out exactly what my rules on it are going to be to prevent arguments (or worse, someone shutting down what would have been a DM call by quoting the RAW when another player asks about a situation; this has happened and I hate it).
Fourth ... some of this sounds like bullshit to me. I mean, I recognise that this is UA stuff, and is going to be playtested before it comes out in 2024, but lately they haven’t exactly made any significant changes to things they’ve playtested before they release it, according to those who actually do the playtesting. And some of it just seems designed to leech the fun out of both success and failure. Nat 20s are auto-success for skill checks ... which on one level, sure, but on another level, there are limits by the laws of physics. They say nothing about critical failures on a nat 1, which ... I know they’re annoying, but it injects either realistic reactions to a nasty situation or tension-breaking laughter to a situation if a DM handles it right, so that stays, thanks. And the critical hit changes. Oh gods. Here are the things just off the top of my head that can no longer critically hit:
Sneak Attack
Superiority Die
Divine Smite
Hunter’s Mark
Deft Strike
Firebolt
I mean, miss me with that. Miss me with all of that. If you rolled a nat 20 (particularly on something like roll20, whose RNG is stingy as fuck about those), you deserve to do some extra damage. Turning a ‘critical success’ into an ‘automatic success’ strips the potential for epic moments out of combat and just ... come on.
And finally ... there’s the practical element. I don’t do well with reading large amounts of text off a screen. When I have a book, I can flip through it for what I want and it feels better to me than a search function. I engage better with print media in this instance. I am not buying 5.5e, and pdfs are counterintuitive to me on that score so pirating it’s out. So basically, immediate shut-down of anything to do with it. I like 5e. I am keeping 5e. Anyone else wants things crunchier and more punishing? I salute you. I’m here for a basic framework that I can bend to my will. 5e gives me that, and I am keeping it.
Not that I haven’t tried other systems, by the way. It’s just that some of them are harder to do online than others. Honestly, the one I liked best was old World of Darkness Mage: the Ascension, and that was ... well, look at it this way - you had suggested spells / rotes, but mostly you had “These are the areas you can affect, this is how much you can affect them, create whatever spell you damn well want, and if you do it where no one can see you, or can find a way to justify it so that it looks like a coincidence, reality’s less likely to bite you in the ass”. Which is why I ended up with rotes like “Time / Correspondence / Entropy - turning up at the right place at the right time to find / meet someone whose location I do not know”, and “Forces / Correspondence / Entropy to control wind currents and get a paper airplane with a note on it to someone across town”, and “straight-up Forces to convert sound to light in a limited area so we can see where we’re going but not be heard”, and on a different character, “Time / Mind / Prime to make it so anyone who tastes my blood will feel like someone set their veins on fire and will then feel that same ‘my blood is on fire’ ow any time they taste ANY blood for the next three months” (we were dealing with vampires).
Give me rules I can bend, is what I’m saying. “Do not cite the deep magic to me, witch. I’ve read it and I can do better”. (And honestly, don’t cite the deep magic to me anyway because the player asking the DM for a rules call was asking the DM for a rules call, and the deep magic might not be the DM’s deep magic. Sorry, but that’s going to annoy me for weeks.)
3 notes · View notes
vecna-official · 1 year
Text
My thoughts on the latest Unearthed Arcana and 5.5e: just play ICON lol
2 notes · View notes
miridiums · 2 years
Text
I think counterspell could have been better as a high level class feature. Almost like a channel divinity, but for arcane casters.
"Once per long rest you can use your reaction to counter a hostile creature when it casts a spell or uses a magical effect." (rolling for it depending on the CR of the creature maybe? )
This would allow for those Epic moments of thwarting the enemy, without becoming a stalemate of counterspell chains every round.
It would also free up the casters in the party to use their cool high level spells, instead of using their high level slots to stop bad spells.
Possibly something they could think of for 5.5e?
3 notes · View notes