#idk enough dnd to do this correctly i think | Explore Tumblr posts and blogs

ncat · 7 months ago

Note

Hi there, I've been thinking lately about a D&D 3.5 class and how I would create it in 5e, and since you're my "bringing cool stuff from 3.5 to 5e" mutual, I was wondering if I could ask for advice/for your help.

Specifically, the beguiler from the Player's Handbook II.

The basic concept of the class is being a skill monkey arcane spellcaster, who is limited almost exclusively to enchantment and illusion, and who benefits from being sneaky while casting spells.

The main feature that I enjoyed about playing this class is that it's a spontaneous caster who has access to their entire spell list. So even though the spell list is limited, the character still has more options than any other caster in terms of spells known/prepared.

The problem with the class is how to make it unique. Other than having access to the whole spell list, the main mechanic of the Beguiler is basically the 5e Arcane Trickster ability Magical Ambush, and there are already a number of classes that can fill the niche of an enchantment and illusion caster, such as enchantment wizard, bards in general, and fey warlock.

I have some ideas, but I'm wondering if you have any thoughts on the matter?

Ooh absolutely happy to help a mutual, and to talk dnd 3.5 stuff!

Well, lets see. I tend to start with focusing in on a specific mechanic and building from there, and with the beguiler, I think we can focus in on Cloaked Casting and Surprise Casting.

Beguiler in the way its designed is, actually kinda close to a 3.5 Rogue. They're similiar in the way of them getting a boost when an enemy is denied a dex bonus to AC, though the Beguiler especially wants the player to lean in on Bluff

In that case, I'd try to mechanically do something similiar to a modern rogue. Give it an equivilent of cunning action, (Maybe with Dash replaced with instead something more equivilent to a bluff (Feint) check?) and giving their spells a boost in that circumstance. How i'd mechanically write that idk, something like "If you'd have advantage on attack rolls against a creature due to being hidden or feinting, that creature has disadvantage on its save", something like Arcane Trickster - Magical Ambush, though more open to allow other means of generating advantage.

And from there I think that creates an interesting game loop, where its similiar to rogues and how they're constantly trying to position themselves correctly to apply sneak attack, you are instead using your positioning and bonus action to make your spells more likely to hit.

As for making it a full class or bard subclass, I'm not too sure.

It could do reasonably well as a bard subclass at a glance? Though I worry having it be so bonus action dependent would cause it to conflict with bardic inspiration, that and I'm unsure how to feel about them being forced into being Charisma casters, rather than being Int casters.

As a full class, I'm unsure either, I wonder if there is enough width in the flavor to give them a good range of subclasses? Thats the annoying downside to subclass based design in 5e, is that it forces each class you make to need to be broadly applicable enough to make a lot of subclasses (Which is why stuff like Cleric gets a lot of subclasses, cuz its easy, and something like ranger doesnt, with some mechanical repeats in that too like Drakewarden/Beastmaster ig?)

But if you've got enough thoughts for it to work as a full class, go for it. I'd say if its at least 3 you can make, and a handful more outside of that you can conceptualize and leave to do later (Or then do them too if they're really fun!) then its good enough to be class material.

In my own personal hands if it were my thing I was writing, i'd probably write it as one of my alternate classes (Creating a new class and putting an existing classes subclasses on it), most likely on a rogue? That could be neat actually, seeing how a rogues subclasses work on a full caster. (Though, arcane trickster would neat some clauses adjusting it in its entirety since it entirely would conflict with the base class features?),

But thats a way to start with subclasses, the way rogue does them. Same way rogue has Inquisitors, Swashbucklers, and A-Tricksters who have unique and additional ways to generate sneak attack, you could have those apply to this, or if you write it as a class, have that be the core concept you design the subclasses with.

When it comes to writing new classes and subclasses, creating a template for features is a great way to go. The Conduit which I wrote earlier has this method of design very blatantly on purpose to make it easier to work with its multi subclass nature, but even the base game classes work this way, such as the Cleric and how its features work.

Ah! And if its a class, it has got to get its gish equivilent subclass. i.e. Valor Bard.

I think, if you go for a class route, giving it the Expert type features rogues and bards get is a good way to go. Expertise is important, as is a good range of skills, and even the option to have 3 starting skills unlike other classes which start at 2. I also think giving it its charisma focused spellcasting, but intelligence based casting, it should have a way to use its intelligence to boost other skills. Maybe some sort of self bless, or ability to substitute int for a different skill a handful of times per day (Which can be really cool, i.e., walking up to an arm wrestle and just, sherlocking your way to victory? Could also go really cool if this could be used on weapon attack rolls too?)

As for its spell list, I think a set spell list is a pretty cool way to go about it. I thought it was a cool mechanic in 3.5, and seeing it make a return could be nice. If you run it similiarly to 3.5, its funky because you get the upside of having a lot more spells at hand compared to other casters, though these spells will all be in theme.

The only downside to this approach is that it does stop the players from having as many choices in character building, and players being given options as they progress is pretty important in my opinion, especially for spellcaster players, since picking your spells is part of the fun.

Though, this isnt entirely a downside. I know some people who dont really want to bother with spellcasters, since the trouble of building up an entire spell list, or list of prepared spells in a day is a hassle. In a way, a set spell list is perfect for these kinds of players, it lets them get to spellcasting without that.

So, I'd say theres two things that come to mind here:

Limited outside of spell list bonus spells, like bardic inspiration. The upside is it gives people a way to customize their spell list, but I dont think its the best option of the two, since it both breaks the fun in the set spell list design, and makes the choice of spells unintentionally even more important since you get so few, and all people will do is most likely choose really high value chase spells like say, shield.

My preferred option is to instead give them points where they can choose their own class features. Comparable to a Hunter Ranger, Fighter Fighting Style, or a Warlock Pact, or even something like 3.5 rogues Special Abilities that they get to pick 4 of. Gives the upsides of customizability without expanding the spell list.

And lastly, as for a spellcaster that focuses on enchantment, I think it should be fine? I mean, sure, there definitely is overlap with the Bard, but the wizard has overlap with the sorcerer, and those still have distinct identities, even when their spell list is similiar. Heck, if you want to make it more distinct from the bard list, give them access to spells bards wouldnt usually get. Theres a bunch of them, and a handful of them are already in the Illusion/Enchantment spell list.

Lastly, when it comes to the spell list, it needs to be versatile enough. I think the hardest part of designing this class will be the spell list. My immediate core points in designing it would probably be

List size. The list should give enough spells at each level that it feels fair. Too few viable spells at each level and the player ponders why not take a different spellcaster, too many and they will be to strong.

Spell versatility and potency. The player should have the right spells available that they should feel like they are able to interact with the world magically, but not enough that they can solve every problem on their own. Its the right mix of having a wide range of spells for different purposes, both utility and combat.

Spell Potency. Its also important to be choosing the correct power level of spell. For instance, they might want some sort of aoe spell, which spellcasters get. Fireball would be too potent and out of their focus, and is designed with the idea its hard to get, being limited to wizards, sorcerer, and choice subclasses. In contrasts, bards get the AoE spell Shatter, which does less damage for the same spell slot, but is balanced against bards getting more potent class features than a wizard or sorcerer.

So yeah, thats my thoughts Ig?

TLDR: Could go well as a Subclass, Class, or Variant class. I think it might work best as a class, using something similiar to rogues Cunning Action gameplay loop but for a spellcaster rather than a martial. Make sure its spell list is carefully curated and balanced.

I'd love to hear more developments on the class if you have any and want to tell me them ! <3

#dnd homebrew

7 notes · View notes

snootlestheangel · 8 months ago

Note

Soap