Search results

IMO Sorcerer has the least class identity. It's just a wizard with a different casting stat. Ranger second least. Just a fighter with nature skills, maybe a druid dip. Druid, could be a cleric Barbarian (playtest) could be an angry fighter. Though the playtest learned into the natrual...

I'll give my feedback, sure.

20% of 0 is 0. Also. You might want to familiarize yourself with the playtest changes, and update it for the new version.

Nope Just toss me 20% if it happens to go viral.

I did this a long time ago, so I don't remember how good it is, but feel free to take a look. https://www.dmsguild.com/m/product/231738

You shouldn't have unlimited healing. Things should scale. Use your spell attack modifier for the Golem and tower to-hit. Possibly add your proficiency bonus to their damage.

For an extra challenge. Make every class a subclass of Ranger.

Artificer can put Infusions on a fighter. So as long as the Golem isn't better than a fighter, Infusions on a Golem won't be better either.

Just think of all the engagement that would go away if we lost the ranger. 😁

Is it an Armored Core? And I'm not aware of another homebrew that does it that way.

Then I would drop the spell casting and go full build-a-bot. Pick an arm at level 1 Pick another arm at level 2 Pick a frame at level 3 (including a driver seat). Multi-attack at level 5 Pick legs at 6 Pick a head at 7 At level 9, you can swap a limb durring a short rest. ??? Pick an upgraded...

I agree that this looks like an Artificer subclass. Not enough by itself. Let the Artificer Infusions apply to the Golem. Possibly getting a bonus Infusion that can only apply to the Golem.

Agreed. That's probably how I would do it too. Though I would probably go with a Nature, Clockwork, Elemental subclass for the Beastmaster. And make a Bow Barbarian viable. With Hunters Mark being a Rage. It's already nature themed. Also, I would move Wild Shape away from the druid, and...

Yes. And old MMO. The world wasn't that great, and the magic system was terrible, but I liked the class-less skill system.

Asheron's Call had the best non-class system IMO. The skills where a combination of attributes. Swords = Str + Dex + skill points. Summoning = Con + Wis + skill points. So you could focus on a single skill, but you would end up being kinda good at secondary stuff, but couldn't both be a...

I would keep Martial Half Caster Full Caster Warlock Psion Then do a sort of 4e style, where you get a new subclass at higher levels. Then you get a subclass at level 1 (fighting style or spell list). A specialization at level 3 (scout, evoker, oath of vengeance). And a master path at level...

I wouldn't simply drop it from 5e, even the 2024 version. I agree it would be hard to recreate with the current structure. But in 6e, I could see it redone as a rogue / paladin / druid subclasses. Depending on how much magic you want.

"The hands of the King are the hands of a healer, and so shall the rightful king be known". That's not nature magic. It's divine. And he gets a magic sword (Excalibur) that recognizes him as a king. And he has high Charisma, boosting the moral of those around him, especially against frightened...

Aragorn had neither nature magic nor a beast. Not to mention all the treads trying to make a magic-less ranger. So that's not a point. And it's easy enough to add Beastmaster to any other class, so it's false to say you need a ranger to do that. Artificer has one for example. Druid or...

No class is "necessary". Each one could of been mixed in with another. Clerics and Fighters could be Paladin subclass. But I do agree Ranger probably has the least identity.