Tom is a busy person. Another new mech, once again in an early draft. The SSC Emperor, a long range support mech. Specializes in granting overshield to allies (though it also has an ability that grants overshield to enemies but makes it explode when it's depleted) and shooting lightning. Only has 5 HP, but it also has resistance against all damage that originates from more than 3 spaces away.
Also in Vampire 5th edition news, I just found out they did a kickstarter for a new book which I'm sad I missed. Adds a lot of details on religion and cults for the setting, but also adds in the Hecata which was one of the clans I was looking forward to the most. The Hecata are a conglomeration of the various necromancer clans from earlier editions and share the Oblivion discipline with the Lasombra. There's a manuscript available for backers, so there's a bunch of details available (though I sadly won't have access to the manuscript myself until they open up the backerkit for additional purchases, but I'm not running V5 right now anyway). They've greatly expanded Oblivion to include more necromantic support powers (like being able to see tethers, items that bind spirits to the world) and with new "Ceremonies" (like Rituals for Blood Sorcery) that include the straight up raising the dead or binding spirits parts. Also a few Lasombra themed ceremonies as a callback to Abyss Mysticism. They also added a TON of customization to Hecata to represent the various sub-factions that compose them via loresheets. Notably some of the sub-clans get different disciplines (standard array is Oblivion, Auspex, and Fortitude) like Giovanni substitute Dominate in place of Auspex, or Gorgons (The Lahmia) substitute Potence in place of Auspex. They also just add a ton of really cool abilities via Loresheets. Like Harbingers of Ashur (Capadocians combined with Harbingers of Skulls) can straight be a ghost inhabiting a vampire's corpse and gain resistance to things like dominate (but a vulnerability to powers that manipulate spirits), or a Dunsirn can use their wealth to buy and maintain separate identities, and Nagaraja can of course eat flesh instead of drinking blood. Sounds like they did a lot of work to make sure you can customize Hecata a ton so you can choose to run a full Hecata game if you want.
- Some sort of ex-spy for a minor noble house. My initial plan was just that they had gotten burned and were currently laying low, but I'm kind of bored of that already so I'm working through some other ideas. Top runner is that they pulled off the heist of the century and managed to get away with enough money to live out the rest of their life hidden away in a cabin. Or so they thought - they've run out of money and are now an old and out of practice spy working like, basic second story jobs in order to make ends meet.
- A fighter, just because I love the DW fighter. Probably armed with some sort of cool polearm, I've been thinking some variety of haughty noble who washed out of military training because they weren't immediately made a commanding officer. But I'm joining an established game (I mean, like one adventure established, but still), and standoffish prick characters kind of suck for that.
Maybe the Burn Notice version of the burned spy? Blacklisted and no idea why?
"My name is Michael Westen. I used to be a spy until... "We've got a Burn Notice on you, you're blacklisted." (Whistles) When you're burned, you've got nothing. No cash, no credit, no job history. You're stuck in whatever city they decide to dump you in. You do whatever work comes your way. You rely on anyone who's still talking to you: a trigger happy ex-girlfriend, an old friend who used to inform on you to the F.B.I. Family too; if you're desperate. And a down and out spy you met along the way. Bottom line: as long as you're burned you're not going anywhere."
StraightziHere we may reign secure, and in my choice,To reign is worth ambition though in HellRegistered Userregular
That was kind of where my initial thoughts were headed, but I...
Well honestly, I couldn't come up with a way to make them look cool. Everything I pictured was just athletic and moderately attractive person in their late 20s to 30s. With y'know, daggers and stuff. Which is fine, but also starts feeling like plenty of other characters I've played (or, really, NPCs that I've played, as I've spent a lot of my time GMing). Playing a thief would be good because I know that the existing players are already trying to plan a heist, but I think that's making it feel even more like just playing a stock NPC character, y'know?
That was kind of where my initial thoughts were headed, but I...
Well honestly, I couldn't come up with a way to make them look cool. Everything I pictured was just athletic and moderately attractive person in their late 20s to 30s. With y'know, daggers and stuff. Which is fine, but also starts feeling like plenty of other characters I've played (or, really, NPCs that I've played, as I've spent a lot of my time GMing). Playing a thief would be good because I know that the existing players are already trying to plan a heist, but I think that's making it feel even more like just playing a stock NPC character, y'know?
Turn the description on its head? Everybody suspects a superspy with the James Bond physique, and maybe if the job is to infiltrate the Kings Court and report back to his enemies that's a good idea. But for the most part, being a spy is about being nondescript. Who's going to expect the slightly overweight, slightly but not overly below average looking schlub with a bum knee of being the spy? You don't have to be an amazing physical specimen to be dexterous and charismatic.
Even better, tell the party you're an old servant or performed some minor role in a temple or something as a very not-important priest. Then you can have those fun moments where you pick a lock using some tools that were concealed on somebody else's person, and when your party is going "Hey, how do you know all this sketchy stuff?" and you can be "I have no idea what you're talking about, it was unlocked the whole time."
edit: And it just so happens that you "know a guy" in whatever far-flung place you need a contact in.
tonight we got into a fight we were absolutely not ready for with a high priestess of Myrkul
she downed three of us with a single fireball (including both our healers)
our fighter managed to close the distance and fuck her up extremely while I stood back and blasted her, making her burn a bunch of spell slots on Shield
she finally panicked and Misty Stepped away from him, only to wind up... right next to me
she tried to run away but provoked an attack of opportunity from me, from the one weapon I had that could take advantage of that - a humble dagger
so after all that I just stabbed her in the spine and down she went
My friend has decided to run with my dumb idea of a Barbarian with the Noble background
Just a big dumb posho whose ancestor spirits are like the Victorian ruling class stereotype, all bluster and "I say, this simply will not do, harrumph"
In the Perth crew's last campaign I rolled a noble lizardfolk barbarian, or 'noblizarian', named Irhtos. His backstory was that he'd been left as an egg on the doorstep of a wealthy human family in Waterdeep, the Goldfellows. They raised him as their own son, but when he began experiencing berserker rages he set off on a journey to discover his ancestral roots. Then he made some friends, got distracted and killed a bunch of giants instead.
EDIT: I've said this before but while berserker barbs are a good build for players new to 5e, if you're at all comfortable with 5e systems then Spirit Totem is probably a lot more fun and lends itself to better RP opportunities.
Some more Unearthed Arcana subclasses. I've really liked the last several that they've put out, and this is another good set. Creation Bard, Love Cleric, and Clockwork Sorcerer
I like the Clockwork's ability to cancel advantage or disadvantage. The Love Cleric's central ability seems really good, and the Creation Bard has a nice enhancement to bardic inspiration.
That was kind of where my initial thoughts were headed, but I...
Well honestly, I couldn't come up with a way to make them look cool. Everything I pictured was just athletic and moderately attractive person in their late 20s to 30s. With y'know, daggers and stuff. Which is fine, but also starts feeling like plenty of other characters I've played (or, really, NPCs that I've played, as I've spent a lot of my time GMing). Playing a thief would be good because I know that the existing players are already trying to plan a heist, but I think that's making it feel even more like just playing a stock NPC character, y'know?
Turn the description on its head? Everybody suspects a superspy with the James Bond physique, and maybe if the job is to infiltrate the Kings Court and report back to his enemies that's a good idea. But for the most part, being a spy is about being nondescript. Who's going to expect the slightly overweight, slightly but not overly below average looking schlub with a bum knee of being the spy? You don't have to be an amazing physical specimen to be dexterous and charismatic.
Even better, tell the party you're an old servant or performed some minor role in a temple or something as a very not-important priest. Then you can have those fun moments where you pick a lock using some tools that were concealed on somebody else's person, and when your party is going "Hey, how do you know all this sketchy stuff?" and you can be "I have no idea what you're talking about, it was unlocked the whole time."
edit: And it just so happens that you "know a guy" in whatever far-flung place you need a contact in.
I am now considering a spy who is based primarily on Harvey Bullock, with some additional influence from Columbo and Brad Pitt in the Ocean's movies.
I don't think I'll be able to get away with the false identity when joining the party trick, as I have done that before and at least one of the players knows about it, but we'll see, I may still try it.
I kind of like the idea of a nondescript, dumpy, decisively non-action, non-charismatic spy who's like "Well yeah, spying is 99% bureaucracy - just, bureaucracy done in their headquarters". Probably wouldn't make for a very engaging character to play, though.
+4
Options
StraightziHere we may reign secure, and in my choice,To reign is worth ambition though in HellRegistered Userregular
I kind of like the idea of a nondescript, dumpy, decisively non-action, non-charismatic spy who's like "Well yeah, spying is 99% bureaucracy - just, bureaucracy done in their headquarters". Probably wouldn't make for a very engaging character to play, though.
I think theoretically that is the sort of thing I would like to do, although I agree it's not a terrible engaging character to play.
I'm also working to make sure things still mesh with the thief playbook - at a certain point you start wondering why this person can even backstab someone in the first place.
Some more Unearthed Arcana subclasses. I've really liked the last several that they've put out, and this is another good set. Creation Bard, Love Cleric, and Clockwork Sorcerer
I like the Clockwork's ability to cancel advantage or disadvantage. The Love Cleric's central ability seems really good, and the Creation Bard has a nice enhancement to bardic inspiration.
Huh they changed it so now that link goes to the previous UA classes
I kind of like the idea of a nondescript, dumpy, decisively non-action, non-charismatic spy who's like "Well yeah, spying is 99% bureaucracy - just, bureaucracy done in their headquarters". Probably wouldn't make for a very engaging character to play, though.
I think theoretically that is the sort of thing I would like to do, although I agree it's not a terrible engaging character to play.
I'm also working to make sure things still mesh with the thief playbook - at a certain point you start wondering why this person can even backstab someone in the first place.
I guess it really falls to what sort of party role you want to fill. This is an excellent idea, IMO, for a Face character that also explains why you're good at sleight of hand, lockpicking, can appraise things, have ranks in esoteric knowledge skills, "know a guy" for any obscure thing in any random place, etc. Sometimes you've gotta shiv somebody though, and it's always better to do that when you're not their main focus. It doesn't take much training at all to know that you can stab somebody better if they're not paying attention to you.
I kind of like the idea of a nondescript, dumpy, decisively non-action, non-charismatic spy who's like "Well yeah, spying is 99% bureaucracy - just, bureaucracy done in their headquarters". Probably wouldn't make for a very engaging character to play, though.
I think theoretically that is the sort of thing I would like to do, although I agree it's not a terrible engaging character to play.
I'm also working to make sure things still mesh with the thief playbook - at a certain point you start wondering why this person can even backstab someone in the first place.
I get why they don't do it, Sneak Attack is a major part of Rogue from a balancing standpoint, but I'd be into more archetypes that trade Sneak Attack for other features
+1
Options
admanbunionize your workplaceSeattle, WARegistered Userregular
Rogue without Sneak Attack is a great concept for a game that isn't D&D.
I kind of like the idea of a nondescript, dumpy, decisively non-action, non-charismatic spy who's like "Well yeah, spying is 99% bureaucracy - just, bureaucracy done in their headquarters". Probably wouldn't make for a very engaging character to play, though.
I think theoretically that is the sort of thing I would like to do, although I agree it's not a terrible engaging character to play.
I'm also working to make sure things still mesh with the thief playbook - at a certain point you start wondering why this person can even backstab someone in the first place.
I get why they don't do it, Sneak Attack is a major part of Rogue from a balancing standpoint, but I'd be into more archetypes that trade Sneak Attack for other features
I want a Druid subclass/archetype that removes Wildshape.
+1
Options
StraightziHere we may reign secure, and in my choice,To reign is worth ambition though in HellRegistered Userregular
I kind of like the idea of a nondescript, dumpy, decisively non-action, non-charismatic spy who's like "Well yeah, spying is 99% bureaucracy - just, bureaucracy done in their headquarters". Probably wouldn't make for a very engaging character to play, though.
I think theoretically that is the sort of thing I would like to do, although I agree it's not a terrible engaging character to play.
I'm also working to make sure things still mesh with the thief playbook - at a certain point you start wondering why this person can even backstab someone in the first place.
I guess it really falls to what sort of party role you want to fill. This is an excellent idea, IMO, for a Face character that also explains why you're good at sleight of hand, lockpicking, can appraise things, have ranks in esoteric knowledge skills, "know a guy" for any obscure thing in any random place, etc. Sometimes you've gotta shiv somebody though, and it's always better to do that when you're not their main focus. It doesn't take much training at all to know that you can stab somebody better if they're not paying attention to you.
Yeah the party already has a bard so I'm not going to try to do that. Which yes, characters like Columbo are super charismatic, just in a non-standard way, and that's not really the direction of that archetype that I was trying to go. Less of a deliberate bluff and more of actually a boorish fuckup who just happens to have fairly quick wits and extremely light fingers.
End of the day I'm probably going to play my immolator, I'm more attached to them as a concept and I think they'll fit well with the tone of this group as I've seen it so far, but I like coming into things with options.
0
Options
StraightziHere we may reign secure, and in my choice,To reign is worth ambition though in HellRegistered Userregular
I kind of like the idea of a nondescript, dumpy, decisively non-action, non-charismatic spy who's like "Well yeah, spying is 99% bureaucracy - just, bureaucracy done in their headquarters". Probably wouldn't make for a very engaging character to play, though.
I think theoretically that is the sort of thing I would like to do, although I agree it's not a terrible engaging character to play.
I'm also working to make sure things still mesh with the thief playbook - at a certain point you start wondering why this person can even backstab someone in the first place.
I get why they don't do it, Sneak Attack is a major part of Rogue from a balancing standpoint, but I'd be into more archetypes that trade Sneak Attack for other features
I want a Druid subclass/archetype that removes Wildshape.
I kind of like the idea of a nondescript, dumpy, decisively non-action, non-charismatic spy who's like "Well yeah, spying is 99% bureaucracy - just, bureaucracy done in their headquarters". Probably wouldn't make for a very engaging character to play, though.
I think theoretically that is the sort of thing I would like to do, although I agree it's not a terrible engaging character to play.
I'm also working to make sure things still mesh with the thief playbook - at a certain point you start wondering why this person can even backstab someone in the first place.
Convince your DM to rework the game to be set entirely inside a white-collar office. Reframe everything about the thief class to be in terms of paperwork (they can backstab someone... by delaying time-off request they put in almost two weeks ago).
I kind of like the idea of a nondescript, dumpy, decisively non-action, non-charismatic spy who's like "Well yeah, spying is 99% bureaucracy - just, bureaucracy done in their headquarters". Probably wouldn't make for a very engaging character to play, though.
I think theoretically that is the sort of thing I would like to do, although I agree it's not a terrible engaging character to play.
I'm also working to make sure things still mesh with the thief playbook - at a certain point you start wondering why this person can even backstab someone in the first place.
I get why they don't do it, Sneak Attack is a major part of Rogue from a balancing standpoint, but I'd be into more archetypes that trade Sneak Attack for other features
I want a Druid subclass/archetype that removes Wildshape.
My nemesis
I would say wildshape is even more defining to druid than sneak attack is to rogues.
StraightziHere we may reign secure, and in my choice,To reign is worth ambition though in HellRegistered Userregular
If you want to get rid of sneak attack for rogues you should probably honestly just get rid of the rogue class
It's my favorite of the Core Four and the only one I don't regularly call for the removal of, but it's a mishmosh of loosely unified abilities that would do better split up into multiple things, in my opinion
0
Options
3cl1ps3I will build a labyrinth to house the cheeseRegistered Userregular
Rogue is a victim of D&D only ever wanting to have one StealthyPerson class, so it's a mix of an assassin-y type cloak&dagger killer, a back alley thug, a cat burglar, a charming but untrustworhy confidence man...they throw pirates and duelists in there too, it's just too much stuff.
I know that they're trying to get away from "just make more classes" as a solution but seriously just make more classes and split rogue out into the coherent components.
+2
Options
StraightziHere we may reign secure, and in my choice,To reign is worth ambition though in HellRegistered Userregular
Rogue is a victim of D&D only ever wanting to have one StealthyPerson class, so it's a mix of an assassin-y type cloak&dagger killer, a back alley thug, a cat burglar, a charming but untrustworhy confidence man...they throw pirates and duelists in there too, it's just too much stuff.
I know that they're trying to get away from "just make more classes" as a solution but seriously just make more classes and split rogue out into the coherent components.
Part of the issue, as I see it, is that a D&D class is defined and balanced by their combat utility
Which would make the skill focused subsets of the rogue (the cat burglar and the con man) a bit more difficult to construct as freestanding entities
Perhaps the end result there is that they're better off keeping them stuck together?
0
Options
3cl1ps3I will build a labyrinth to house the cheeseRegistered Userregular
Well that sort of opens into the discussion of "is D&D as a system too focused on combat" (yes, it 100% is), but you're not wrong, D&D has a very hard time dealing with any archetype that doesn't have immediately apparent martial ability.
I remember that the "thief" was renamed to "rogue" in 3rd Ed, and I kinda feel like it had an image change at the same time, as well; before, it was presented more as a sneaky operator who climbed walls and forged documents and such, and after it was presented as a light-armored finesse-fighter who still engaged in the thief's extracurricular activities. Am I mis-remembering this? How was the thief presented in 1st and 2nd Ed?
I feel like the fighter is a tremendously broad thing as well, isn't it? A soldier, a gladiator, a bodyguard, a palace guard, and the kind of maladjusted reprobate who plunders old dungeons and monster lairs are all going to approach physical combat for different reasons, with different goals, and using different tactics - but because they all use their physical bodies to swing material weapons at their enemies, they're all "fighters". I guess if we look hard enough, we can pick apart all the stock D&D classes like this, but "fighter" has always felt to me like a very default "This NPC doesn't really have any special abilities; I dunno, make 'em a fighter".
0
Options
StraightziHere we may reign secure, and in my choice,To reign is worth ambition though in HellRegistered Userregular
Yeah I think both the fighter and the rogue should be torn apart into two or more component classes (my general picks are Soldier/Brawler and Burglar/Highwayman respectively)
I also think there are a fair number of similar issues with the cleric and the wizard, as the two other members of the core set, but my personal solution there would just be to get rid of them because I think that they make much better NPCs than PCs and could easily exist exclusively in that space
Make a version of d&d without spellcasting classes
+1
Options
Zonugal(He/Him) The Holiday ArmadilloI'm Santa's representative for all the southern states. And Mexico!Registered Userregular
My proposal is to allow a character to pick up archetypes as they progress within the same class.
So at third level your Rogue might pick up the Assassin archetype/subclass and as a result gain sneak attack. At 6th or 7th level they can either continue in the Assassin archetype/subclass or pick up the beginning features of the Thief archetype/subclass.
0
Options
3cl1ps3I will build a labyrinth to house the cheeseRegistered Userregular
My proposal is to allow a character to pick up archetypes as they progress within the same class.
So at third level your Rogue might pick up the Assassin archetype/subclass and as a result gain sneak attack. At 6th or 7th level they can either continue in the Assassin archetype/subclass or pick up the beginning features of the Thief archetype/subclass.
4E had some of this and it worked very well.
+3
Options
ShadowenSnores in the morningLoserdomRegistered Userregular
I think in 2nd Rogue was occasionally used as a catchall term for the sneaky-type classes and kits (Thief, Bard, etc.), and Thief was just the main version of it. Similarly, Warrior was used for any class or kit with full attack progression and d10 or better hit die (Fighter just being the one focused entirely around specialized training, but including Paladin, Ranger, etc.), Priest for any divine caster who got spells up to 7th level (pre-3rd, the highest spell level for divine casters, so Cleric, Druid, etc.), and Mage for any squishy arcane caster (Wizards, specialist wizards, etc.).
Then in 3rd they made it so that Rogue was the term for the main subtlety-types, and Thief as a game term kind of disappeared. Warrior became the NPC class for non-special full attack progression types you describe (which always seemed backwards to me; Warrior sounds both deadlier and more high fantasy to me than Fighter), Priest was abandoned almost entirely in game terms, and Mage did sort of become a catchall for focused arcane casters, but not as an official game term.
Ideally I want a classic fantasy rpg where magic is weird and esoteric from the players pov and often ritual based so it isn't rooted in the games combat mechanics so much as the narrative.
+1
Options
StraightziHere we may reign secure, and in my choice,To reign is worth ambition though in HellRegistered Userregular
My proposal is to allow a character to pick up archetypes as they progress within the same class.
So at third level your Rogue might pick up the Assassin archetype/subclass and as a result gain sneak attack. At 6th or 7th level they can either continue in the Assassin archetype/subclass or pick up the beginning features of the Thief archetype/subclass.
I actually really like this sort of approach, generally speaking - my general thing with RPGs is that characters should be less focused on getting better at one thing as they go, and more focused on getting a wider variety of things that they can do.
But I'll also note two specific requirements that are more or less necessary to making it work:
- First the base class needs to still have abilities of their own, something to make them interesting to play. If nobody gets interesting abilities until level 3, you're going to see a lot of games starting at level 3, and you might as well just have that be your system from the get-go.
- You also need to make sure that specialization isn't necessarily over-rewarded. Make sure that the extra abilities you would gain from switching off your assassin track to the thief track are just as valuable as continuing down the assassin track. This is a lot easier if you're handling everything as separate abilities and not just improving sneak attack or whatever.
The personal spin I like to put on this style of leveling is actually full on changing the class name based on what abilities you've chosen - you start off as a rogue, and then you become an assassin or a thief or a highwayman in-between or what have you.
I think in 2nd Rogue was occasionally used as a catchall term for the sneaky-type classes and kits (Thief, Bard, etc.), and Thief was just the main version of it. Similarly, Warrior was used for any class or kit with full attack progression and d10 or better hit die (Fighter just being the one focused entirely around specialized training, but including Paladin, Ranger, etc.), Priest for any divine caster who got spells up to 7th level (pre-3rd, the highest spell level for divine casters, so Cleric, Druid, etc.), and Mage for any squishy arcane caster (Wizards, specialist wizards, etc.).
Then in 3rd they made it so that Rogue was the term for the main subtlety-types, and Thief as a game term kind of disappeared. Warrior became the NPC class for non-special full attack progression types you describe (which always seemed backwards to me; Warrior sounds both deadlier and more high fantasy to me than Fighter), Priest was abandoned almost entirely in game terms, and Mage did sort of become a catchall for focused arcane casters, but not as an official game term.
2nd Edition PHB had Wizard, Warrior, Rogue, Fighter, Paladin, and Ranger.
I feel like the biggest sign that Rogues are a nothing ass class is in how they don't translate to more open char gen systems at all.
Like, take Shadowrun (mostly because it's open ended and still has magic). You can make a monk, a wizard, a fighter and so on and so forth with pretty clear cases of "what those dudes should be good at"
The rogue is just... like half the skill list that isn't academic or combat based?
3rd Edition added skills to D&D (I mean, we had non-weapon proficiencies before, but... not quite the same thing), and said "K, rogues are the skill class".
Just like how fighter became the feat class.
A more open-ended char gen system is usually built around skills as the foundation, not a thing that's stapled onto an already existing char gen system. Like, D&D keeps skills and attack bonuses as distinct systems, while a more generic char gen system would probably say "your rank in face-punch skill determines your attack rolls, your face-talk skill determines your schmooze rolls", etc.
I kind of like the idea of a nondescript, dumpy, decisively non-action, non-charismatic spy who's like "Well yeah, spying is 99% bureaucracy - just, bureaucracy done in their headquarters". Probably wouldn't make for a very engaging character to play, though.
Roald Dahl worked for British Intelligence during WWII.
I kind of like the idea of a nondescript, dumpy, decisively non-action, non-charismatic spy who's like "Well yeah, spying is 99% bureaucracy - just, bureaucracy done in their headquarters". Probably wouldn't make for a very engaging character to play, though.
Roald Dahl worked for British Intelligence during WWII.
Also he flew fighter planes... so he may not be the most appropriate example.
+1
Options
admanbunionize your workplaceSeattle, WARegistered Userregular
I remember that the "thief" was renamed to "rogue" in 3rd Ed, and I kinda feel like it had an image change at the same time, as well; before, it was presented more as a sneaky operator who climbed walls and forged documents and such, and after it was presented as a light-armored finesse-fighter who still engaged in the thief's extracurricular activities. Am I mis-remembering this? How was the thief presented in 1st and 2nd Ed?
Rogue in 2E was no less sneak-attack focused than 3E.
Posts
Tom is a busy person. Another new mech, once again in an early draft. The SSC Emperor, a long range support mech. Specializes in granting overshield to allies (though it also has an ability that grants overshield to enemies but makes it explode when it's depleted) and shooting lightning. Only has 5 HP, but it also has resistance against all damage that originates from more than 3 spaces away.
Also in Vampire 5th edition news, I just found out they did a kickstarter for a new book which I'm sad I missed. Adds a lot of details on religion and cults for the setting, but also adds in the Hecata which was one of the clans I was looking forward to the most. The Hecata are a conglomeration of the various necromancer clans from earlier editions and share the Oblivion discipline with the Lasombra. There's a manuscript available for backers, so there's a bunch of details available (though I sadly won't have access to the manuscript myself until they open up the backerkit for additional purchases, but I'm not running V5 right now anyway). They've greatly expanded Oblivion to include more necromantic support powers (like being able to see tethers, items that bind spirits to the world) and with new "Ceremonies" (like Rituals for Blood Sorcery) that include the straight up raising the dead or binding spirits parts. Also a few Lasombra themed ceremonies as a callback to Abyss Mysticism. They also added a TON of customization to Hecata to represent the various sub-factions that compose them via loresheets. Notably some of the sub-clans get different disciplines (standard array is Oblivion, Auspex, and Fortitude) like Giovanni substitute Dominate in place of Auspex, or Gorgons (The Lahmia) substitute Potence in place of Auspex. They also just add a ton of really cool abilities via Loresheets. Like Harbingers of Ashur (Capadocians combined with Harbingers of Skulls) can straight be a ghost inhabiting a vampire's corpse and gain resistance to things like dominate (but a vulnerability to powers that manipulate spirits), or a Dunsirn can use their wealth to buy and maintain separate identities, and Nagaraja can of course eat flesh instead of drinking blood. Sounds like they did a lot of work to make sure you can customize Hecata a ton so you can choose to run a full Hecata game if you want.
Maybe the Burn Notice version of the burned spy? Blacklisted and no idea why?
"My name is Michael Westen. I used to be a spy until... "We've got a Burn Notice on you, you're blacklisted." (Whistles) When you're burned, you've got nothing. No cash, no credit, no job history. You're stuck in whatever city they decide to dump you in. You do whatever work comes your way. You rely on anyone who's still talking to you: a trigger happy ex-girlfriend, an old friend who used to inform on you to the F.B.I. Family too; if you're desperate. And a down and out spy you met along the way. Bottom line: as long as you're burned you're not going anywhere."
Well honestly, I couldn't come up with a way to make them look cool. Everything I pictured was just athletic and moderately attractive person in their late 20s to 30s. With y'know, daggers and stuff. Which is fine, but also starts feeling like plenty of other characters I've played (or, really, NPCs that I've played, as I've spent a lot of my time GMing). Playing a thief would be good because I know that the existing players are already trying to plan a heist, but I think that's making it feel even more like just playing a stock NPC character, y'know?
Turn the description on its head? Everybody suspects a superspy with the James Bond physique, and maybe if the job is to infiltrate the Kings Court and report back to his enemies that's a good idea. But for the most part, being a spy is about being nondescript. Who's going to expect the slightly overweight, slightly but not overly below average looking schlub with a bum knee of being the spy? You don't have to be an amazing physical specimen to be dexterous and charismatic.
Even better, tell the party you're an old servant or performed some minor role in a temple or something as a very not-important priest. Then you can have those fun moments where you pick a lock using some tools that were concealed on somebody else's person, and when your party is going "Hey, how do you know all this sketchy stuff?" and you can be "I have no idea what you're talking about, it was unlocked the whole time."
edit: And it just so happens that you "know a guy" in whatever far-flung place you need a contact in.
she downed three of us with a single fireball (including both our healers)
our fighter managed to close the distance and fuck her up extremely while I stood back and blasted her, making her burn a bunch of spell slots on Shield
she finally panicked and Misty Stepped away from him, only to wind up... right next to me
she tried to run away but provoked an attack of opportunity from me, from the one weapon I had that could take advantage of that - a humble dagger
so after all that I just stabbed her in the spine and down she went
mean bunch here in Baldur's Gate
In the Perth crew's last campaign I rolled a noble lizardfolk barbarian, or 'noblizarian', named Irhtos. His backstory was that he'd been left as an egg on the doorstep of a wealthy human family in Waterdeep, the Goldfellows. They raised him as their own son, but when he began experiencing berserker rages he set off on a journey to discover his ancestral roots. Then he made some friends, got distracted and killed a bunch of giants instead.
EDIT: I've said this before but while berserker barbs are a good build for players new to 5e, if you're at all comfortable with 5e systems then Spirit Totem is probably a lot more fun and lends itself to better RP opportunities.
https://media.wizards.com/2020/dnd/downloads/UA2020-Subclasses02.pdf
I like the Clockwork's ability to cancel advantage or disadvantage. The Love Cleric's central ability seems really good, and the Creation Bard has a nice enhancement to bardic inspiration.
The cleric level 1 feature seems incredibly op. Giving two people a permanent +1d4 to everything is just insane.
The bard is a fun theme but is quite weak, imo, especially compared to the other two.
I am now considering a spy who is based primarily on Harvey Bullock, with some additional influence from Columbo and Brad Pitt in the Ocean's movies.
I don't think I'll be able to get away with the false identity when joining the party trick, as I have done that before and at least one of the players knows about it, but we'll see, I may still try it.
I think theoretically that is the sort of thing I would like to do, although I agree it's not a terrible engaging character to play.
I'm also working to make sure things still mesh with the thief playbook - at a certain point you start wondering why this person can even backstab someone in the first place.
Huh they changed it so now that link goes to the previous UA classes
I guess it really falls to what sort of party role you want to fill. This is an excellent idea, IMO, for a Face character that also explains why you're good at sleight of hand, lockpicking, can appraise things, have ranks in esoteric knowledge skills, "know a guy" for any obscure thing in any random place, etc. Sometimes you've gotta shiv somebody though, and it's always better to do that when you're not their main focus. It doesn't take much training at all to know that you can stab somebody better if they're not paying attention to you.
I get why they don't do it, Sneak Attack is a major part of Rogue from a balancing standpoint, but I'd be into more archetypes that trade Sneak Attack for other features
I want a Druid subclass/archetype that removes Wildshape.
Yeah the party already has a bard so I'm not going to try to do that. Which yes, characters like Columbo are super charismatic, just in a non-standard way, and that's not really the direction of that archetype that I was trying to go. Less of a deliberate bluff and more of actually a boorish fuckup who just happens to have fairly quick wits and extremely light fingers.
End of the day I'm probably going to play my immolator, I'm more attached to them as a concept and I think they'll fit well with the tone of this group as I've seen it so far, but I like coming into things with options.
My nemesis
I would say wildshape is even more defining to druid than sneak attack is to rogues.
3DS: 0473-8507-2652
Switch: SW-5185-4991-5118
PSN: AbEntropy
It's my favorite of the Core Four and the only one I don't regularly call for the removal of, but it's a mishmosh of loosely unified abilities that would do better split up into multiple things, in my opinion
I know that they're trying to get away from "just make more classes" as a solution but seriously just make more classes and split rogue out into the coherent components.
Part of the issue, as I see it, is that a D&D class is defined and balanced by their combat utility
Which would make the skill focused subsets of the rogue (the cat burglar and the con man) a bit more difficult to construct as freestanding entities
Perhaps the end result there is that they're better off keeping them stuck together?
I feel like the fighter is a tremendously broad thing as well, isn't it? A soldier, a gladiator, a bodyguard, a palace guard, and the kind of maladjusted reprobate who plunders old dungeons and monster lairs are all going to approach physical combat for different reasons, with different goals, and using different tactics - but because they all use their physical bodies to swing material weapons at their enemies, they're all "fighters". I guess if we look hard enough, we can pick apart all the stock D&D classes like this, but "fighter" has always felt to me like a very default "This NPC doesn't really have any special abilities; I dunno, make 'em a fighter".
I also think there are a fair number of similar issues with the cleric and the wizard, as the two other members of the core set, but my personal solution there would just be to get rid of them because I think that they make much better NPCs than PCs and could easily exist exclusively in that space
So at third level your Rogue might pick up the Assassin archetype/subclass and as a result gain sneak attack. At 6th or 7th level they can either continue in the Assassin archetype/subclass or pick up the beginning features of the Thief archetype/subclass.
4E had some of this and it worked very well.
Then in 3rd they made it so that Rogue was the term for the main subtlety-types, and Thief as a game term kind of disappeared. Warrior became the NPC class for non-special full attack progression types you describe (which always seemed backwards to me; Warrior sounds both deadlier and more high fantasy to me than Fighter), Priest was abandoned almost entirely in game terms, and Mage did sort of become a catchall for focused arcane casters, but not as an official game term.
I actually really like this sort of approach, generally speaking - my general thing with RPGs is that characters should be less focused on getting better at one thing as they go, and more focused on getting a wider variety of things that they can do.
But I'll also note two specific requirements that are more or less necessary to making it work:
- First the base class needs to still have abilities of their own, something to make them interesting to play. If nobody gets interesting abilities until level 3, you're going to see a lot of games starting at level 3, and you might as well just have that be your system from the get-go.
- You also need to make sure that specialization isn't necessarily over-rewarded. Make sure that the extra abilities you would gain from switching off your assassin track to the thief track are just as valuable as continuing down the assassin track. This is a lot easier if you're handling everything as separate abilities and not just improving sneak attack or whatever.
The personal spin I like to put on this style of leveling is actually full on changing the class name based on what abilities you've chosen - you start off as a rogue, and then you become an assassin or a thief or a highwayman in-between or what have you.
2nd Edition PHB had Wizard, Warrior, Rogue, Fighter, Paladin, and Ranger.
Like, take Shadowrun (mostly because it's open ended and still has magic). You can make a monk, a wizard, a fighter and so on and so forth with pretty clear cases of "what those dudes should be good at"
The rogue is just... like half the skill list that isn't academic or combat based?
Just like how fighter became the feat class.
A more open-ended char gen system is usually built around skills as the foundation, not a thing that's stapled onto an already existing char gen system. Like, D&D keeps skills and attack bonuses as distinct systems, while a more generic char gen system would probably say "your rank in face-punch skill determines your attack rolls, your face-talk skill determines your schmooze rolls", etc.
Roald Dahl worked for British Intelligence during WWII.
Rock Band DLC | GW:OttW - arrcd | WLD - Thortar
Also he flew fighter planes... so he may not be the most appropriate example.
Rogue in 2E was no less sneak-attack focused than 3E.
I have and got booed for it