I LOVE the Circle of Spores! The mechanics are amazing. The only downside is poison damage being so resisted. Especially with undead being immune. Otherwise, I love it. What if the spores allowed the druid a chance to control existing undead?
Another problem is that there are too many immunities (that crit immunity is so good) and the spreading spores is unlimited, which is way too good. Also, the wild shape gives it so much health in the end game, with 60 at level 20.
I wish there was a fighter sub class that had more martial arts unarmed type stuff but without the spiritual inner peace magic stuff from the monk, just a skilled unarmed fighter who punches and kicks hard, you know? A brawler or a wrestler even, just a viable unarmed fighter archetype would be cool...
I know this is old, but there's this: Unarmed Fighting Your unarmed strikes can deal bludgeoning damage equal to 1d6 + your Strength modifier. If you strike with two free hands, the d6 becomes a d8. When you successfully start a grapple, you can deal 1d4 bludgeoning damage to the grappled creature. Until the grapple ends, you can also deal this damage to the creature whenever you hit it with a melee attack. Now, its a fighting style, so not quite a subclass, but it does indeed exist
The idea is that in order for your fists to be better than swords you need something magical like ki. Even most natural weapons arent as good as tools made for killing. Its just one of those "realism" things that is weirdly in our game of giant scaly lizards that breath fire. As a side note, a wizard subclass based on self-buffing like a more serious incarnation of Muscle Wizard would be pretty neat.
Why does the Brute get so much hate? It's a really great subclass that fixes a lot of the problems that the Champion suffers from. The Brute needs a little tweaking, but it balances well against the Battlemaster and various Paladin and Barbarian archetypes. It's a Fighter that does a lot of damage and is resilient; a simple Fighter that's good at fighting. That's all I want.
its because its a simple fighter class that completely overshadows the already simple fighter class. It hits all the same notes while doing them better. If it was a bit more different from the champion in its design it would be more widely accepted as good, but right now, there isn't a point. If it was called Champion fighter Revised it would also be accepted most likely.
the problem isn't that its another passive archetype, the problem is that its better than every archetype. A fighter archetype whose focus is on attacks that passively deal more damage is the equivalent to a paladin oath that gives it more smites, or a wizard school that gives it more spells and spell slots. Its one thing to try and lean into the classes identity and give it abilities that reflect the very nature of the class, but its another to make an archetype that makes it a better fighter than any other fighter, especially one that doesn't even fit the theme of the archetype. A brute is a better archer than the arcane archer.
Alright, but hear me out. If the Champion, at 15th level, is weaker than a guy who adds a 1d6 to their damage, maybe the Champion was underpowered to begin with. In point of fact, you can crunch the numbers and discover that the Champion's 3rd level ability is weaker than a +1 to hit and damage. That's pretty weak. It's way behind the Battlemaster's damage, and that doesn't even account for the tactical advantages (disarming, tripping, etc), that the combat maneuvers grant. You call it power creep. I say it's regressing to the mean.
I agree that the brute is nice in concept, but the execution is off. I feel like they need to give it an identity that differs from "Better Champion". Champion is about dealing good damage and have resilience via high critical rate and so on. The brute should be more about the raw numbers they're producing. Both of them should not get survivor. That should be a champion thing. At level 15 they both get a critical thing. That should belong to champion. I would retool the brute in such a way that it benefits more from hitting things in general. Maybe instead of a boost to crits and restoring health like a champion, you can just give them a reroll to a missed hit. Like a constant flurry of attacks that will keep coming until they hit, and when they hit, they hit hard. I also wouldn't mind if they gave it more synergy with two weapon fighting, something that is really neglected in the fighter world. A nice feature would be an attack that lets you hit with both weapons at the same time at the cost of a regular attack or even a bonus action to hit with both weapons. Just SOMETHING to make TWF fighters more viable past level 5. But I have to agree with the general consensus (to this date) that Brute is just a better Champion. I would go as far to say that the Brute should replace the Champion in everything but name. Like what they did with Rangers and just admit that Champions suck and nobody picks them.
Alex McCullough I loved the idea, but it should have been limited to a few types. The fact that force was ever on the table pretty much meant there was no reason to use any other type. And forcing STR or INT saves is such an overpowered ability. What they should have done is limit it to the classic saves: DEX, CON, or WIS. That doesn't mean you can't have other saves that already exist, those are just the ones you have the option to switch them to. And 1 mile fireballs are ridiculous. And so is the one that increases damage per target. I loved the idea of the class. But I think it was probably the most broken subclass they've ever created.
Alex McCullough Hey, I'm back from 4 months in the future because I went back and watched this video again. One thing I forgot to mention is that the Lore Master very clearly needs to be a Sorcerer subclass. Because I *would* say that it should steps on the Sorcerer's toes, but it more suplexes the Sorcerer and screams in it's face.
It's the most balanced of the subclasses, but I agree. Brute and invention are ridiculously stacked in their favor over established subclasses. Such as brute being a mix that heavily steps on the champion's toes. While the school of invention can get into the thick better than a damn war mage. They really need to nerf those two.
While this may be true fire is also highly resistant or immunized and yet a large proportion of players make spell casters that focus is like on using fire based spells
Flavor-wise, I liked Lore Wizard better than School of Invention. The Lore Wizard is a scholar and a scientist. The inventor, like all inventors, is an engineer. I'm an engineer myself and there's a vital difference between those study science compared to those who apply it. The only problem with Lore Wizard is that a lot of effort has clearly gone into balancing the type of saving throws a specific spell requires and that messing with that allows for very powerful combos such as an infinite hold person using a strength save. The ability is thematically excellent and fun, but mechanically too powerful to not feel like avoiding the subclass is the same as choosing to be sub-par. The lore wizard is thus in a tough spot and I don't know how to save it. The School of Invention has its own charms, but it's not saving the lore wizard.
I'm still letting my players use the Lore Mastery option. Though in order to avoid major breakages from the saving throw change, what I did, was allow the saving throw to go up or down one from the stat it's assigned to. So if it's normally a Wisdom save, they can make it an Intelligence or Charisma save instead. Dexterity can be either a Strength or Constitution and so on. As far as the range increase, we're just using a factor of 10. Definitely some serious fun here.
Lore Master filled a niche of a "generalist" wizard that I still believe is missing from the game, and even though I like the School of Invention, I don't really feel it's a suitable replacement for that niche. The Invention Wizard seems more like some kind of Wizard/Artificer Hybrid. IMHO they should take the armor modification from this subclass and the Mechanical Servant from the last iteration of Artificer and make that a separate Artificer subclass.
You’re spot on. They should polish both Artificer and Lore Master, instead of making a hybrid. Leave the abilities people liked, throw away trash, replace it with new, decent abilities.
I agree. The "generalist" wizard and the bookish, lore delving nature of the subclass was the most interesting part of Lore Master. The alchemical casting and spell altering rules were interesting, but never the reason for me to try the subclass out. I really hope there'll be a new Wizard subclass that goes a bit to the direction of lore collector who maybe forsakes some combat powers for knowledge and lore that can be useful in other ways.
Cayotick Agree with everything. I was exceptionally bummed out the Lore master wasn't in XGE. It needed balance, but 5E needs that "generalist" wizard like you said.
Of all three subclasses, just spore druid makes me want to play it. That said, it still needs a lot of work. Either increase the damage of the spores or change the damage type to necrotic or acid. Also, rewrite the reaction damage. It's nice to get a different use of your reaction, but the way it is now can confuse a lot of inexpenrienced players. It's nice to see you guys aren't slowing down after xanathar's, but I miss more content tailored towards DMs
It's also very unbalanced. It has a serious amount of temp hit points at level 20 (60 every wild shape!) and the spore spreading is unlimited, which is way too powerful.
Ya'll have this all wrong. I WANT A WIZARD WHO GETS EXPERTISE IN ARCANA. They study magic all their lives and a lore bard or knowledged cleric can have a much higher arcana score? That's not right. Fix it!
It's the same with how none of the druids can have expertise Nature meaning that bards that have never left the city could know more about the natural world than the people that live in the wilds.
I know about the feat, I think a wizard should automatically get expertise in arcana because that is what they spent their lives studying. I actually feel that way about any of the classes with that kind of focus - they are the experts, they should have expertise.
This is why I homebrewed skill points for high intelligence modifiers similar to Pathfinder. Because if you have a Sheldon-like intelligence you should get an in-game benefit for that.
I made a Brute for a One-Shot this week. I'm really enjoying it! The only thing I would change is the capstone ability, just to differentiate it from Champion a bit more. But my Brute was definitely able to dish out and take some punishment last session, and I'm really happy with what it is.
King Kickass, the wild magic sorcerer is kinda weak. I think they could fix it by allowing them more access to the wild magic table at higher levels. Once you have the ability to roll twice on the table and choose one, the chances of choosing something bad drops to about 6%. So, the wild magic table becomes your friend, and the more often you get to roll, the better. For instance, let the sorcerer choose if they want to roll on the wild magic table on a roll of 2 or 3.
Carson Rush Yeah. It's also kind of DM dependent. I don't think this wizard is very good. I don't really think the mechanics back the flavor too much. I mean there is a few on there. I think if you wanted to play a Wild Mage, you could reflavor this a bit and it would be perfecr. Just overall, to me not very interesting concept.
I say make Brute a rogue subclass that can be used for a str Rogue. Like Brute Rogue can use str with weapons such as rapier, and perhaps have other things like initiative and stealth being str-based. Really make a hard hitting rogue.
Weren't most of the complaints about lore mastery was that it did certain things better than what sorcerers were capable of? (Not saying I didn't like lore... loved it very much) If so, isn't this invention wizard kinda like a more controlled wild sorcerer with armor (for some reason)? Not hating on it, but...
I like how the inventor feels almost like an artificer since 5e REALLY needs one. Brute would be better imo as a str based monk subclass, think the patient immovable monk who absorbs hits and hits with one powerful strike at the right moment
As a mushroom gatherer in RL, this class actually brought me into this game. I've greatly enjoyed CoS play so far and no one knew about this class but the DM allowed it. It's been a blast.
The 'pick an element' ability of the Lore wizard is such an amazing ability, I dont know what it isnt base line for all wizards. Currently, the only way to play an 'Ice Wizard' or a 'Lightning Wizard' is to limit yourself to a hand full of spells. I think in the PHB theres only like 4-5 lightning spells for wizards. Fire has a tone. In my games I give all Wizards the 'Elemental Study' class ability at level 1. Lets the player pick one element from fire, cold, lightning, thunder, poison, acid, necrotic or radiant. They can switch one damage type of any spell they cast to this element, but you may not change so both elements of the spell have the same damage type. (ie a spell that deals Cold and Thunder damage couldnt be switched to deal Cold and Cold damage, but could be switched to say Cold and Acid damage). If they later go School of Evocation, they can choose any of the listed damage types, not just the one picked at level 1.
The option to change the element of a spell goes in as a meta-magic in my games. I've never understood why Wizards want to put it on wizards rather than the class whose cool thing is being able to change spells.
I'm currently using a Spore Druid in our campaign and it's been pretty fun so far. For narration purposes, I made it so that whenever my character Animates Dead, she swallows the components and breathe it out as spores that goes into the corpse' mouth and it starts to grow fungus all over its body. She's a walking japanese horror movie.
Me and a friend were casually playing a game where he made a level 20 character and I would throw more and more difficult waves of monsters at him. The last thing I threw at him was a homebrewed version of Zuggtmoy that I found online. I really enjoyed all the fungi mechanics and it made me search to see if something similar existed that was playable, and so I ran into this. I really hope that the circle of spores gets worked on because I find it very interesting especially for a class that I usually dislike playing.
I love running a tiefling 14 wizard of invention and 6 wild magic sorcerer. I love random rolling tables to get cool spells. Plus it allows me to prepare more utility spells without being useless in combat.
“Why should we care about sorcerers? Let’s make a wizard school that is a better sorcerer AND a better Artificer than sorcerers and artificers are! We are not “Sorcerers of the Coast”, after all.”
"Warlock doesn't have a simple subclass" lvl 1: Get a shield on kill lvl 6: Roll a d10 on a single roll per rest lvl 10: Damage resistance lvl 14: Once a day Banishment but only for 1 round and it deals damage
I've been playing a spartan-like fighter in my playgroup for a while now, and what better archetype to signify the spartan, who spends his whole life in training, than a CHAMPION, the pinnacle of physical conditioning. While the archetype itself didn't really give me much, I could fill in the gaps by making a feat based character, which was satisfying enough for me. I knew I could have been playing a better character if I was literally any other archetype, but I wanted to let my him be what he really is. I consoled myself - I thought: "hey, this extra crit seems fun from time to time, and the bonus fighting style opens an option or two". I even decided on using a spear (which has a dmg die of d6), just to stay true to him, and that was even before the spear mastery feat, which I'm thankful for (btw why the heck is the spear not included in polearm mastery, but the quarterstaff is... literally just check the definition of a polearm in the dictionary). Anywho, by checking the brute I honestly just feel bashed (pun not intended). It wasn't that bad bearing the fact that the champion was a bit weaker, but when you give me an archetype that does literally everything he does, but better in every way, my character just feels like a joke and I have 0 gameplay incentive left to play him as a champion. More than that - we all know how bad it feels for your character to die; how about the feeling when a character made to be the manifestation of a martial badass through effort is reduced to being pathetic from every viewpoint by your run-of-the-mill smash-smash. You didn't kill my character, you killed his honor, and it feels even worse, and every bit as personal. I'm sure it's not just me - I'm sure that every champion devoted guy also feels the same. I've ranted for long enough so I'll leave you with this: If you want to remake the champion, that's great, and you probably should, just keep the name, and keep the theme; do the brute some justice also and differentiate him in some way, because he also doesn't have a face of his own as things stand; just do something, because r/n the title of champion sounds like pure irony.
For the inventor, it’d be cool if we could change the type, but it still be treated as far as resistances go the original type, so basically an rp ability that lets me say “oh yeah btw this is a necrotic lightning bolt”
On the other hand, the Circle of the Spoeres looks cool, has a great flavor (I never realized I wanted a Golgari Druid that much), and the mechanics seem fun and worth trying.
Practically homebrew with barebone refinement, even in the official releases you can see it's the work of rookies, the brute is fun to play, as powerful as the battle master and it's actually exciting to roleplay unlike most of the other fighter subclasses (of course he was discarded, I guess only barbarians can be brutes and all that)
I love my twilight druid. I use Primal Savagery and "crit fish" like a Paladin to "smite" with my necrotic dice. The Spore druid feels like an NPC, or something for strange worlds like Athas, or the Underdark.
Though with a bit more time I will say, Twilight is a little undertuned through early levels. no extra cantrips or spells per day means it's a little one note.
I'm loving the concept of the spore druid, and I'm gonna bust it out in a one-off this weekend. I'm hoping other people like it to, because i think it had a lot of potential. Mostly, I just want a few in-book cosmetic effects for it, like the shadow warlock. It just seems that a person imbued with fungus should have more porous skin or mushrooms in their hair... something nice and disturbing to set them apart.
Lore Master had potential. Invention is a flummoxed mess of Artificer/Lore Master combined but does neither well at all. Brute is cool, but seems a little bland. Spores is AMAZING, great flavor and great abilities.
Damn, the spore druid sounds really cool! I'm a big fan of fungus in general, and necromancy is one of my favorite things in fantasy. You could also use the class to roleplay a witch or maybe even add a hag home-brew race.
I see the circle of the spores as protesters of the life cycle, almost like grim reapers, maintaining the balance between life and death, as well as undeath.
My first instinct would be have the brute add Prof. bonus to damg. rolls, rather than a dice bonus. this would be more easily understood by the newer players that these types of fighters attract without sacrificing potency.
Of would be awesome if we had like a totally different engineer/alchemist class. Someone who fights through poisons, potions, bombs and other devices. Make Them able do tinker with their armor etc. Would be sweet
I love the flavour of the lore wizard, also having the supreme INT checks is nice. Also I want the brute to be an unarmed fighter. That’s be cool, even if it’d be kinda like a reflavoured Monk
Brutes are insane throughout their leveling... especially if you combine one with Half-Orc... just critting something can make you easily deal over 60 damage in later levels just by the amount of bonus damage you receive for critting... and that with just one weapon attack (and you likely still having 2 left that round). Also, they almost have as much HP as a Barbarian...
School of Invention doesn't have anything that would make me want to pick it over another wizard. The armor is worse than Mage Armor, and spending a higher spell slot to use a lower spell is a waste of that spell slot. I'll just grab what spells I need to begin with - wizards have a massive list of spells to choose from
Xanathar's guide needed to expand on mounts and training them to make them viable what with the whole Cavalier subclass. 'Hey, here's a class that has some devotion to mounted combat even though our system pretty much ensures any non-special mount is a liability more than a boon'
I can't wait to take the survey! Spore Druid: I'd like to see the flavor suggest that when you wild shape you are a fungi-beast or Fungus person hybrid. Though there is nothing stating you can't flavor it that way. Seems lacking. The Last of Us Zombies are different at least. Brute Fighter: NOTHING TO SEE HERE. MOVE ALONG. Just another resourceless fighter subclass. Really though I do wish the tried to reintroduce the Superiority dice back into the base Fighter class. I feel it would have been a brilliant way to introduce new player to the game. "Okay so he has magic, and I have maneuvers? All I need to do is call it out and roll a die and add that to this? Okay I can do that." Off topic but The brute is not worth talking about yet. It recycle too much from the champion. Do fighter really need another "simple" class? I think not. Invention Wizard: Loving the lore, and that this is the next iteration of the Loremaster Wizard, lore school. I feel like this is the Chaos Wizard. Well done so far. The armor seems odd though. Maybe they could remove the atonement or replace it with the Lore Master feature from the Lore Mastery School.
Love the Circle of Spores, both it's flavor and Mechanics, Druid Necromancers have always been such a cool concept to me! But I don't care for the Name, off the top of my head I'd change it to "The Circle of Decay
School of Invention as a name gave me certain expectations that were not fulfilled. I was hoping for more of an Artificer subclass for the Wizard rather than someone who tweaks damage types. I'm simplifying it, sure, but that was the most interesting part of this School. The enchanted armor means nothing to me and the spell gamble just isn't all that interesting. This being said, I don't typically play Wizards, so I don't have the appreciation that others do. I want to play a Wizard; who doesn't. However, I haven't found a subclass that draws me in to the class. Circle of Spores, to me, is really cool. I really like Myconids, so mushroom/spore themed things are okay in my book. The whole dealing with the undead rather than just promoting life, life, and more life is awesome. I don't have much experience with Druids and gravity towards making Moon Druids over Land Druids for the improved Wildshape, but I feel like this Circle would be just as fun. The Brute is pretty cool too. I think I would more likely go for the Champion since it's just as simple in my eyes, and I like that boosted crit chance. That being said, I think the Brute may actually be a smarter choice over the Champion? I don't really know; I like both subclasses and could see myself playing either one while having a blast.
I think he already said this in a new video, but it's clear now with the Ravnica announcement that these subclasses were a dry run for the guild related character options in the 10 guilds of Ravnica. School of Invention is for Izzet League Wizards. Circle of Spores is the obvious choice for Golgari Druids. And the Brute is the straight forward choice for fighters in the Boros and maybe Gruul guilds.
Get a two camera setup on these videos. You can only zoom in and out so many times before it feels obvious. One camera facing the direction your camera currently faces, and a second camera on side profile.
Invention wizard is good for Tony Stark in D&D. Princess Bride D&D: Fezzick would be a Goliath brute, Westley/Dread Pirate Roberts is a swashbuckler and Inigo is a vengeance Paladin
Thematically I adore the Circle of Spores (I love the idea of taking a more Lovecraftian route with it) but mechanically I'm just not sure how well it works.
It's simple like a Champion and without recharge abilities but the actual combat side of things the Brute blows it out of the water. If they both wield a dagger at 3rd level, the Champ needs a 19 or 20 to crit for the extra damage die; the Brute will get that additional damage die so long as it hits. A dueling longsword+shield Brute will out damage a greatsword while still benefiting from the AC bump. I really like the idea of the Brute but it is far too over powered. 7th level you'll effectively be proficient or better in all saves 66% of the time and the S and Co saves will be sky high. Stick the Brute next to a Paladin and the DM will avoid all AoEs and saving throws for the rest of the campaign. There's opportunity costs for sure but it needs to be toned down.
Because Champion is wayy Underpowered compared to Battlemaster, whereas if you do the math, Brute is about even (very slightly less) damage-per-round (DPR) compared to Battlemaster.
Lavender Spectre For sure, Champion is very lack luster until the final tier of play compared to Battle Master but the Brute goes too far to compensate. Unlimited 1D4 vs a handful of D8s+abilities... In typical combats the Battle Master will likely be fine and not need to worry about resources but the Brute can keep swinging all day every day no matter the number of baddies and encounters. Obviously the dice size progresses as levels go up but think about it this way: it will outdamage magical weapons being used by other characters (obviously no To Hit bonus, though). The Devastating Critical ability is the second tier of the Barbarian crit ability but without the variation and a few damage points higher on average compared to if the Barb is using a Greateaxe, even more if any other weapon is used. I like the Brute and I believe the Champion needs a boost but this is too much.
I love 5e but I wish you guys would workshop grappling a little. An improvised weapons grappler is something I always wanted to play but its just not up to snuff compared to a wielder tank.
Brute just seems like a boring champion reskin with better damage. I'd rather have something like a high risk and huge damage build with a focus on grappling and knocking stuff down. Maybe a focus on heavy weapons could help balance it so you can't just go Dex Archer and give your DM an fit.
To be honest most complaints I saw about the Lore Master when the topic was being discussed in the community were from people misunderstanding the rules. They would come up with scenarios that were impossible unless the DM altered the rules, the skills had reasonable cool-downs and many of the "overpowered" applications people were complaining about. Granted some were problematic, but i nthe few times they happened the DM was able to take care of it. Don't really like "invention" the flavor is great, but there's the Artificer, there's Mage Armor, Lore Mastery was great to play a nutjob nerd wizard that can bend spells with his wits
I think the brute subclass is really good. I've changed my fighter from Champion to Brute on my campain and I really feel it got stronger and relevant on the battles, something I missed in the Champion subclass.
I feel like Invention needs to be an Artificer subclass. To me when I looked invention initially it seemed just a really weird fit for wizard. Honestly making it artificer with more focus on the armor and being moddable [ kind of like the mechanist subclass in the Fan Revised version] with bonuses being able to be added on the higher level you go while giving Artificer a more melee focused subclass [ as Gunsmith gives him ranged, Alchemist gives him support and Mechanist gives him a mix of support or tank ] but in Normal artificer fashion making him less bulkier than others in the scrap and his buildings being his primary focus.
Honestly, I loved the Lore Master, and although I agree that some aspects should have been changed or nerfed, I don't think the school of Invention does that, or that it's a suitable subclass for a wizard at all. Expending spell slots and randomness are not a bad mechanic per se, but are awful in context, it doesn't make it feel like a wizard at all, it would fit more a Sorcerer or, even better, an Artificer, which already filled the niche for "spellcaster focused on creation of constructs" that was behind it in the first place, making it redundant at best. Particularly since random spells cap at the Artificer's maximum level, making it look even more a subclass for it. Also, it misses what was possibly the best part of the Lore Master, which is the expertise. Not only did wizard desperately need that (basic Rogues and Bards can gain that, Clerics have a subclass for it, but Wizard, whose basic concept is a lifestime of study of the arcane, have no official option that makes it expert in Arcana, it really feels off and unflavourful), but also worked great, since it isn't game breaking, has great flavor (if you play a Lore Master, you want to study and research) and has a lot of utility and options for gameplay outside combat (and even in, if used properly), and most of all it actually showed that it was the subclass used for research, instead the new armor not only removes all of that, making it instead look more combat-oriented, but also is extremely frustrating since it really feels like something that's supposed to scale up at higher levels, but never does.
Maybe if and when they publish it it will do better dmg like the Whisper Bard which also dealt poison dmg and now it deals either poison or psychic (player choice)
Love circle of spores with the necromancy feel but through nature. Its gritty and gross and fun. Has a great theme. However poison damage is rather weak.
7 minutes to explain the wonky wizard class compared to 3 for the completely new druid concept tells you all you need to know about how unworkable and confusing the school of invention will be over the table.
The spores look fantastic. I'd buff the initial thingy just a little, say 4 or 5 damage instead of 3, but thats coming from me and I don't know game design, so take it with a pinch of salt.
I’m interested in the brute, it’s seems to me at least like a barbarian that doesn’t/can’t rage but still get a dmg bonus. I do feel like there’s been a pure non magical heavy damage dealer missing though
So will these three plus the Centaur and Minotaur playable charts appear in the next book. I also would love to see Blood Hunter become an actual thing, yes I know it's a homebrewed class from the great Matthew Mercer but it's a very good class and deserves to be acknowledged. Subnote: Just an idea for the next book's name, The New Adventurer's Guide. Yay or Nay. I don't know the lore to well so it's a bit of a safety net that I didn't add a character name and I doubt Drizzt Do'Urden would "write" a book like that or even release a book like that
And I still want the Lore Master subclass to happen along with Pyromancer mage and Summoner mage. Also I would love to see the fighter subclass of the Thayan Knight 😎💯
Yeah, but I would really call it Champion 2.0. I was really disappointed because when I read the name of the subclass I got really exited: A mechanical alternative to the Champion but then I realized that only half of the features were unique and the other ones just recycled. Still want to see an original brute tho! :)
Actually, returning to the loremaster and saving throws, when I play I completely negate meta-knowledge because I just don’t see any fun in the game if it’s all just numbers and whatnot. When I played the loremaster and changed the saving throw, I’d always include a description of how the spell affects the creature. If I didn’t describe to suit a Strength save my DM would tell me and I would change it to how he viewed it. I absolutely adored loremaster and every part of it; of course I understand completely based on how differently people’s play styles are compared to each other.
I like the brute, seems it only need some nerfs for TWF bonus damage, maybe should make it only trigger on main Attack action attacks and not Bonus action. Also thematically it should be for melee weapons only, now the wording also allows it for ranged weapons (in my head it only makes sense for melee weapons or strength weapons)
Truth be told. I want kind of a punching Barbarian or Fighter. Monk is great but the fluff behind it really doesn't suit all my needs when I want my character to just run in head long and bring a personal beat down with the fist. Maybe a new set of fighting styles to make this kind of do able or a Sub class while he is raging the Barb can punch is better dice damage or as a bonus action. IDK just some fat to chew on.
The circle of spores would be cool if you turn into a myconid, and the school of invention would fit more into an artificer subclass.
If you wouldnt know what he was talking about you would think he was talking about the artificer
You said Invention wizard, Spore druid and Brute fighter. All I heard was "Izzet, Golgari, Gruul."
N. Henzler with the Ravnica setting announced, I think you called it.
And all but spores got trashed anyway. Woohoo.
i love the spore druid so much!
I LOVE the Circle of Spores! The mechanics are amazing. The only downside is poison damage being so resisted. Especially with undead being immune. Otherwise, I love it. What if the spores allowed the druid a chance to control existing undead?
Another problem is that there are too many immunities (that crit immunity is so good) and the spreading spores is unlimited, which is way too good. Also, the wild shape gives it so much health in the end game, with 60 at level 20.
I wish there was a fighter sub class that had more martial arts unarmed type stuff but without the spiritual inner peace magic stuff from the monk, just a skilled unarmed fighter who punches and kicks hard, you know?
A brawler or a wrestler even, just a viable unarmed fighter archetype would be cool...
Just play a monk and ditch the flavor. That's it.
There is a homebrew Pugilist class that seems a lot like what you're looking for
I know this is old, but there's this: Unarmed Fighting
Your unarmed strikes can deal bludgeoning damage equal to 1d6 + your Strength modifier. If you strike with two free hands, the d6 becomes a d8. When you successfully start a grapple, you can deal 1d4 bludgeoning damage to the grappled creature. Until the grapple ends, you can also deal this damage to the creature whenever you hit it with a melee attack.
Now, its a fighting style, so not quite a subclass, but it does indeed exist
The idea is that in order for your fists to be better than swords you need something magical like ki. Even most natural weapons arent as good as tools made for killing. Its just one of those "realism" things that is weirdly in our game of giant scaly lizards that breath fire.
As a side note, a wizard subclass based on self-buffing like a more serious incarnation of Muscle Wizard would be pretty neat.
Why does the Brute get so much hate? It's a really great subclass that fixes a lot of the problems that the Champion suffers from.
The Brute needs a little tweaking, but it balances well against the Battlemaster and various Paladin and Barbarian archetypes.
It's a Fighter that does a lot of damage and is resilient; a simple Fighter that's good at fighting. That's all I want.
it doesn't fix champion, it replaces champion. that's the problem.. it's bloat and power creep, which are what killed 3.5 edition.
its because its a simple fighter class that completely overshadows the already simple fighter class. It hits all the same notes while doing them better. If it was a bit more different from the champion in its design it would be more widely accepted as good, but right now, there isn't a point. If it was called Champion fighter Revised it would also be accepted most likely.
the problem isn't that its another passive archetype, the problem is that its better than every archetype. A fighter archetype whose focus is on attacks that passively deal more damage is the equivalent to a paladin oath that gives it more smites, or a wizard school that gives it more spells and spell slots. Its one thing to try and lean into the classes identity and give it abilities that reflect the very nature of the class, but its another to make an archetype that makes it a better fighter than any other fighter, especially one that doesn't even fit the theme of the archetype. A brute is a better archer than the arcane archer.
Alright, but hear me out. If the Champion, at 15th level, is weaker than a guy who adds a 1d6 to their damage, maybe the Champion was underpowered to begin with.
In point of fact, you can crunch the numbers and discover that the Champion's 3rd level ability is weaker than a +1 to hit and damage. That's pretty weak. It's way behind the Battlemaster's damage, and that doesn't even account for the tactical advantages (disarming, tripping, etc), that the combat maneuvers grant.
You call it power creep. I say it's regressing to the mean.
I agree that the brute is nice in concept, but the execution is off. I feel like they need to give it an identity that differs from "Better Champion". Champion is about dealing good damage and have resilience via high critical rate and so on. The brute should be more about the raw numbers they're producing. Both of them should not get survivor. That should be a champion thing. At level 15 they both get a critical thing. That should belong to champion.
I would retool the brute in such a way that it benefits more from hitting things in general. Maybe instead of a boost to crits and restoring health like a champion, you can just give them a reroll to a missed hit. Like a constant flurry of attacks that will keep coming until they hit, and when they hit, they hit hard. I also wouldn't mind if they gave it more synergy with two weapon fighting, something that is really neglected in the fighter world. A nice feature would be an attack that lets you hit with both weapons at the same time at the cost of a regular attack or even a bonus action to hit with both weapons. Just SOMETHING to make TWF fighters more viable past level 5.
But I have to agree with the general consensus (to this date) that Brute is just a better Champion. I would go as far to say that the Brute should replace the Champion in everything but name. Like what they did with Rangers and just admit that Champions suck and nobody picks them.
I understand lore master had problems, but please, my acid fireballs and my cones of lightning are crying as am I
Alex McCullough I loved the idea, but it should have been limited to a few types. The fact that force was ever on the table pretty much meant there was no reason to use any other type.
And forcing STR or INT saves is such an overpowered ability. What they should have done is limit it to the classic saves: DEX, CON, or WIS. That doesn't mean you can't have other saves that already exist, those are just the ones you have the option to switch them to.
And 1 mile fireballs are ridiculous. And so is the one that increases damage per target.
I loved the idea of the class. But I think it was probably the most broken subclass they've ever created.
Kabobawsome. Oh yes indeed, the save selection’s power was grotesque
They should polish Lore Master instead of making a new subclass that, in some sense, copycats the Artificer.
I think they can still balance the Lore Master intead of replacing it for this new one.
I'll talk about this on the next survey.
Alex McCullough Hey, I'm back from 4 months in the future because I went back and watched this video again. One thing I forgot to mention is that the Lore Master very clearly needs to be a Sorcerer subclass. Because I *would* say that it should steps on the Sorcerer's toes, but it more suplexes the Sorcerer and screams in it's face.
Circle of Spores needs a buff. So many monsters in D&D have Resistance to Poison or immunity.
Or at least let the spell Elemental Bane apply to Poison, so the Druid at least has the option of _making_ their foes susceptible to poison.
Maybe change it to disease damage, which would make it far more practical to use.
It's the most balanced of the subclasses, but I agree. Brute and invention are ridiculously stacked in their favor over established subclasses. Such as brute being a mix that heavily steps on the champion's toes. While the school of invention can get into the thick better than a damn war mage. They really need to nerf those two.
While this may be true fire is also highly resistant or immunized and yet a large proportion of players make spell casters that focus is like on using fire based spells
Because fire has a lot of good spells and is easier to work with. There's a reason you hardly see anyone playing a black or green dragon sorcerer.
Flavor-wise, I liked Lore Wizard better than School of Invention. The Lore Wizard is a scholar and a scientist. The inventor, like all inventors, is an engineer. I'm an engineer myself and there's a vital difference between those study science compared to those who apply it.
The only problem with Lore Wizard is that a lot of effort has clearly gone into balancing the type of saving throws a specific spell requires and that messing with that allows for very powerful combos such as an infinite hold person using a strength save. The ability is thematically excellent and fun, but mechanically too powerful to not feel like avoiding the subclass is the same as choosing to be sub-par.
The lore wizard is thus in a tough spot and I don't know how to save it. The School of Invention has its own charms, but it's not saving the lore wizard.
I miss Lore Mastery too. Is time to vote the Lore Master on the next survey!
So... Lore Wizard is just the ressurection of 3.5E Wizard in 5E.
I'm still letting my players use the Lore Mastery option. Though in order to avoid major breakages from the saving throw change, what I did, was allow the saving throw to go up or down one from the stat it's assigned to. So if it's normally a Wisdom save, they can make it an Intelligence or Charisma save instead. Dexterity can be either a Strength or Constitution and so on. As far as the range increase, we're just using a factor of 10. Definitely some serious fun here.
Lore Master filled a niche of a "generalist" wizard that I still believe is missing from the game, and even though I like the School of Invention, I don't really feel it's a suitable replacement for that niche.
The Invention Wizard seems more like some kind of Wizard/Artificer Hybrid.
IMHO they should take the armor modification from this subclass and the Mechanical Servant from the last iteration of Artificer and make that a separate Artificer subclass.
Cayotick I liked the loremaster, but I think I like the inventor better. It definitely has a gnome theme to it, and hope it makes it in the next book.
You’re spot on. They should polish both Artificer and Lore Master, instead of making a hybrid. Leave the abilities people liked, throw away trash, replace it with new, decent abilities.
I agree. The "generalist" wizard and the bookish, lore delving nature of the subclass was the most interesting part of Lore Master. The alchemical casting and spell altering rules were interesting, but never the reason for me to try the subclass out. I really hope there'll be a new Wizard subclass that goes a bit to the direction of lore collector who maybe forsakes some combat powers for knowledge and lore that can be useful in other ways.
Yes, that would be great. Wizards are all about utility, anyway. We could use a subclass that turns this up to eleven.
Cayotick Agree with everything. I was exceptionally bummed out the Lore master wasn't in XGE. It needed balance, but 5E needs that "generalist" wizard like you said.
Of all three subclasses, just spore druid makes me want to play it.
That said, it still needs a lot of work. Either increase the damage of the spores or change the damage type to necrotic or acid. Also, rewrite the reaction damage. It's nice to get a different use of your reaction, but the way it is now can confuse a lot of inexpenrienced players.
It's nice to see you guys aren't slowing down after xanathar's, but I miss more content tailored towards DMs
It's also very unbalanced. It has a serious amount of temp hit points at level 20 (60 every wild shape!) and the spore spreading is unlimited, which is way too powerful.
Todd gets more headroom in every video lol
Listen, I need my space. I'm scared of ceilings.
Ya'll have this all wrong. I WANT A WIZARD WHO GETS EXPERTISE IN ARCANA. They study magic all their lives and a lore bard or knowledged cleric can have a much higher arcana score? That's not right. Fix it!
Jeff Farrell right! Magic man should know magic the best and it's not included because it was "too op"
It's the same with how none of the druids can have expertise Nature meaning that bards that have never left the city could know more about the natural world than the people that live in the wilds.
That's why they made the "Prodigy" feat.
I know about the feat, I think a wizard should automatically get expertise in arcana because that is what they spent their lives studying. I actually feel that way about any of the classes with that kind of focus - they are the experts, they should have expertise.
This is why I homebrewed skill points for high intelligence modifiers similar to Pathfinder. Because if you have a Sheldon-like intelligence you should get an in-game benefit for that.
I made a Brute for a One-Shot this week. I'm really enjoying it! The only thing I would change is the capstone ability, just to differentiate it from Champion a bit more. But my Brute was definitely able to dish out and take some punishment last session, and I'm really happy with what it is.
I want to play one really bad too. Since I can't find a DM who will allow it, I have turned one into a BBEG body guard.
0.01% of this was about The Brute. I’d love to hear more about this subclass!
Does the Invention Wizard seem a better Wild Mage than the Wild Magic Sorcerer? Also Circle of Spores seems cool flavorwise.
King Kickass, the wild magic sorcerer is kinda weak. I think they could fix it by allowing them more access to the wild magic table at higher levels. Once you have the ability to roll twice on the table and choose one, the chances of choosing something bad drops to about 6%. So, the wild magic table becomes your friend, and the more often you get to roll, the better. For instance, let the sorcerer choose if they want to roll on the wild magic table on a roll of 2 or 3.
Carson Rush Yeah. It's also kind of DM dependent. I don't think this wizard is very good. I don't really think the mechanics back the flavor too much. I mean there is a few on there. I think if you wanted to play a Wild Mage, you could reflavor this a bit and it would be perfecr. Just overall, to me not very interesting concept.
I say make Brute a rogue subclass that can be used for a str Rogue. Like Brute Rogue can use str with weapons such as rapier, and perhaps have other things like initiative and stealth being str-based. Really make a hard hitting rogue.
I like this idea, I already tried STR Rogue and it was lacking something like this
rapier is finesse. Finesse in the game allowes you to use either str or dex for attack and damage rolls already. longsword would be good tho.
Maybe rename it Enforcer (as in "criminal enforcer"), and encourage dual-statting instead of straight-up just switching everything over to Str.
Das a gud idea
Wizard of Invention was the first wizard I ever played. I play tested it for 6 months. He was a human gambler it was wonderful.
Weren't most of the complaints about lore mastery was that it did certain things better than what sorcerers were capable of? (Not saying I didn't like lore... loved it very much) If so, isn't this invention wizard kinda like a more controlled wild sorcerer with armor (for some reason)? Not hating on it, but...
I like how the inventor feels almost like an artificer since 5e REALLY needs one. Brute would be better imo as a str based monk subclass, think the patient immovable monk who absorbs hits and hits with one powerful strike at the right moment
Really glad they changed it from Poison to necrotic
As a mushroom gatherer in RL, this class actually brought me into this game. I've greatly enjoyed CoS play so far and no one knew about this class but the DM allowed it. It's been a blast.
The 'pick an element' ability of the Lore wizard is such an amazing ability, I dont know what it isnt base line for all wizards. Currently, the only way to play an 'Ice Wizard' or a 'Lightning Wizard' is to limit yourself to a hand full of spells. I think in the PHB theres only like 4-5 lightning spells for wizards. Fire has a tone.
In my games I give all Wizards the 'Elemental Study' class ability at level 1. Lets the player pick one element from fire, cold, lightning, thunder, poison, acid, necrotic or radiant. They can switch one damage type of any spell they cast to this element, but you may not change so both elements of the spell have the same damage type. (ie a spell that deals Cold and Thunder damage couldnt be switched to deal Cold and Cold damage, but could be switched to say Cold and Acid damage).
If they later go School of Evocation, they can choose any of the listed damage types, not just the one picked at level 1.
The option to change the element of a spell goes in as a meta-magic in my games. I've never understood why Wizards want to put it on wizards rather than the class whose cool thing is being able to change spells.
I'm currently using a Spore Druid in our campaign and it's been pretty fun so far. For narration purposes, I made it so that whenever my character Animates Dead, she swallows the components and breathe it out as spores that goes into the corpse' mouth and it starts to grow fungus all over its body. She's a walking japanese horror movie.
Me and a friend were casually playing a game where he made a level 20 character and I would throw more and more difficult waves of monsters at him. The last thing I threw at him was a homebrewed version of Zuggtmoy that I found online. I really enjoyed all the fungi mechanics and it made me search to see if something similar existed that was playable, and so I ran into this.
I really hope that the circle of spores gets worked on because I find it very interesting especially for a class that I usually dislike playing.
I love running a tiefling 14 wizard of invention and 6 wild magic sorcerer. I love random rolling tables to get cool spells. Plus it allows me to prepare more utility spells without being useless in combat.
Now with Ravnica announced it all make sense. Invention = Izzet, Spores = Golgari, Brute = Gruul!
“Why should we care about sorcerers? Let’s make a wizard school that is a better sorcerer AND a better Artificer than sorcerers and artificers are! We are not “Sorcerers of the Coast”, after all.”
Lelouch Vee JUSTICE FOR SORCERERS
I've turned this concept into a Sorcerer. Weave Shaper on D&D beyond. I have one of my players running it now.
"Warlock doesn't have a simple subclass"
lvl 1: Get a shield on kill
lvl 6: Roll a d10 on a single roll per rest
lvl 10: Damage resistance
lvl 14: Once a day Banishment but only for 1 round and it deals damage
The “stay in your own lane” Druid lol
I've been playing a spartan-like fighter in my playgroup for a while now, and what better archetype to signify the spartan, who spends his whole life in training, than a CHAMPION, the pinnacle of physical conditioning. While the archetype itself didn't really give me much, I could fill in the gaps by making a feat based character, which was satisfying enough for me. I knew I could have been playing a better character if I was literally any other archetype, but I wanted to let my him be what he really is. I consoled myself - I thought: "hey, this extra crit seems fun from time to time, and the bonus fighting style opens an option or two". I even decided on using a spear (which has a dmg die of d6), just to stay true to him, and that was even before the spear mastery feat, which I'm thankful for (btw why the heck is the spear not included in polearm mastery, but the quarterstaff is... literally just check the definition of a polearm in the dictionary). Anywho, by checking the brute I honestly just feel bashed (pun not intended). It wasn't that bad bearing the fact that the champion was a bit weaker, but when you give me an archetype that does literally everything he does, but better in every way, my character just feels like a joke and I have 0 gameplay incentive left to play him as a champion. More than that - we all know how bad it feels for your character to die; how about the feeling when a character made to be the manifestation of a martial badass through effort is reduced to being pathetic from every viewpoint by your run-of-the-mill smash-smash. You didn't kill my character, you killed his honor, and it feels even worse, and every bit as personal. I'm sure it's not just me - I'm sure that every champion devoted guy also feels the same. I've ranted for long enough so I'll leave you with this: If you want to remake the champion, that's great, and you probably should, just keep the name, and keep the theme; do the brute some justice also and differentiate him in some way, because he also doesn't have a face of his own as things stand; just do something, because r/n the title of champion sounds like pure irony.
For the inventor, it’d be cool if we could change the type, but it still be treated as far as resistances go the original type, so basically an rp ability that lets me say “oh yeah btw this is a necrotic lightning bolt”
On the other hand, the Circle of the Spoeres looks cool, has a great flavor (I never realized I wanted a Golgari Druid that much), and the mechanics seem fun and worth trying.
Practically homebrew with barebone refinement, even in the official releases you can see it's the work of rookies, the brute is fun to play, as powerful as the battle master and it's actually exciting to roleplay unlike most of the other fighter subclasses (of course he was discarded, I guess only barbarians can be brutes and all that)
"Circle of the Spores could be LICHEN-ed to..." Hats off to your amazing unintentional use of a pun.
I love my twilight druid. I use Primal Savagery and "crit fish" like a Paladin to "smite" with my necrotic dice. The Spore druid feels like an NPC, or something for strange worlds like Athas, or the Underdark.
Though with a bit more time I will say, Twilight is a little undertuned through early levels. no extra cantrips or spells per day means it's a little one note.
I'm loving the concept of the spore druid, and I'm gonna bust it out in a one-off this weekend. I'm hoping other people like it to, because i think it had a lot of potential. Mostly, I just want a few in-book cosmetic effects for it, like the shadow warlock. It just seems that a person imbued with fungus should have more porous skin or mushrooms in their hair... something nice and disturbing to set them apart.
From what I can tell, the school of invention is a step forward towards a workable alchemist and or articicer
Lore Master had potential. Invention is a flummoxed mess of Artificer/Lore Master combined but does neither well at all. Brute is cool, but seems a little bland. Spores is AMAZING, great flavor and great abilities.
Damn, the spore druid sounds really cool! I'm a big fan of fungus in general, and necromancy is one of my favorite things in fantasy. You could also use the class to roleplay a witch or maybe even add a hag home-brew race.
I see the circle of the spores as protesters of the life cycle, almost like grim reapers, maintaining the balance between life and death, as well as undeath.
My first instinct would be have the brute add Prof. bonus to damg. rolls, rather than a dice bonus. this would be more easily understood by the newer players that these types of fighters attract without sacrificing potency.
Of would be awesome if we had like a totally different engineer/alchemist class. Someone who fights through poisons, potions, bombs and other devices. Make Them able do tinker with their armor etc. Would be sweet
I love the flavour of the lore wizard, also having the supreme INT checks is nice. Also I want the brute to be an unarmed fighter. That’s be cool, even if it’d be kinda like a reflavoured Monk
Brutes are insane throughout their leveling... especially if you combine one with Half-Orc... just critting something can make you easily deal over 60 damage in later levels just by the amount of bonus damage you receive for critting... and that with just one weapon attack (and you likely still having 2 left that round). Also, they almost have as much HP as a Barbarian...
I love the avoidance of meta knowledge being required in game
School of Invention doesn't have anything that would make me want to pick it over another wizard. The armor is worse than Mage Armor, and spending a higher spell slot to use a lower spell is a waste of that spell slot. I'll just grab what spells I need to begin with - wizards have a massive list of spells to choose from
"Definitely the zombie of the circle of spores could be LICHEN'd to the fungus zombies"
subtle, todd
Xanathar's guide needed to expand on mounts and training them to make them viable what with the whole Cavalier subclass. 'Hey, here's a class that has some devotion to mounted combat even though our system pretty much ensures any non-special mount is a liability more than a boon'
THE LORE MASTER STEPS ALL OVER THE SORCERER'S TOES, sheesh.
I really like the flavor/playstyle of the Circle of Spores. Nice job there. :) Only issue is poison immunity is pretty common.
I can't wait to take the survey!
Spore Druid: I'd like to see the flavor suggest that when you wild shape you are a fungi-beast or Fungus person hybrid. Though there is nothing stating you can't flavor it that way. Seems lacking. The Last of Us Zombies are different at least.
Brute Fighter: NOTHING TO SEE HERE. MOVE ALONG. Just another resourceless fighter subclass. Really though I do wish the tried to reintroduce the Superiority dice back into the base Fighter class. I feel it would have been a brilliant way to introduce new player to the game. "Okay so he has magic, and I have maneuvers? All I need to do is call it out and roll a die and add that to this? Okay I can do that." Off topic but The brute is not worth talking about yet. It recycle too much from the champion. Do fighter really need another "simple" class? I think not.
Invention Wizard: Loving the lore, and that this is the next iteration of the Loremaster Wizard, lore school. I feel like this is the Chaos Wizard. Well done so far.
The armor seems odd though. Maybe they could remove the atonement or replace it with the Lore Master feature from the Lore Mastery School.
The invention wizard sounds like so much fun.
Love the Circle of Spores, both it's flavor and Mechanics, Druid Necromancers have always been such a cool concept to me!
But I don't care for the Name, off the top of my head I'd change it to "The Circle of Decay
I will autobuy the book with Circle of Spores in it. I don't even care if it's good. Spores spores spores.
Myconid race + Circle of Spores sounds absolutely insane
School of Invention now allows you to play Iron Kingdoms' Warcasters in 5e
School of Invention as a name gave me certain expectations that were not fulfilled. I was hoping for more of an Artificer subclass for the Wizard rather than someone who tweaks damage types. I'm simplifying it, sure, but that was the most interesting part of this School. The enchanted armor means nothing to me and the spell gamble just isn't all that interesting.
This being said, I don't typically play Wizards, so I don't have the appreciation that others do. I want to play a Wizard; who doesn't. However, I haven't found a subclass that draws me in to the class.
Circle of Spores, to me, is really cool. I really like Myconids, so mushroom/spore themed things are okay in my book. The whole dealing with the undead rather than just promoting life, life, and more life is awesome. I don't have much experience with Druids and gravity towards making Moon Druids over Land Druids for the improved Wildshape, but I feel like this Circle would be just as fun.
The Brute is pretty cool too. I think I would more likely go for the Champion since it's just as simple in my eyes, and I like that boosted crit chance. That being said, I think the Brute may actually be a smarter choice over the Champion? I don't really know; I like both subclasses and could see myself playing either one while having a blast.
I think he already said this in a new video, but it's clear now with the Ravnica announcement that these subclasses were a dry run for the guild related character options in the 10 guilds of Ravnica.
School of Invention is for Izzet League Wizards.
Circle of Spores is the obvious choice for Golgari Druids.
And the Brute is the straight forward choice for fighters in the Boros and maybe Gruul guilds.
Awesome video!
Get a two camera setup on these videos. You can only zoom in and out so many times before it feels obvious. One camera facing the direction your camera currently faces, and a second camera on side profile.
BRB gonna go build a Golgari Circle of Spores character for Guildmaster's Guide to Ravnica.
the brute was wonderful sad it is not in.
Invention wizard is good for Tony Stark in D&D. Princess Bride D&D: Fezzick would be a Goliath brute, Westley/Dread Pirate Roberts is a swashbuckler and Inigo is a vengeance Paladin
Fighter's subclass, Brute is my favorite.
Thematically I adore the Circle of Spores (I love the idea of taking a more Lovecraftian route with it) but mechanically I'm just not sure how well it works.
I vote for Brute, it's a Champion that doesn't suck. I'm excited to play it!
Lavender Spectre why make it if it already does what Champion does?
It's simple like a Champion and without recharge abilities but the actual combat side of things the Brute blows it out of the water. If they both wield a dagger at 3rd level, the Champ needs a 19 or 20 to crit for the extra damage die; the Brute will get that additional damage die so long as it hits. A dueling longsword+shield Brute will out damage a greatsword while still benefiting from the AC bump.
I really like the idea of the Brute but it is far too over powered. 7th level you'll effectively be proficient or better in all saves 66% of the time and the S and Co saves will be sky high. Stick the Brute next to a Paladin and the DM will avoid all AoEs and saving throws for the rest of the campaign.
There's opportunity costs for sure but it needs to be toned down.
Because Champion is wayy Underpowered compared to Battlemaster, whereas if you do the math, Brute is about even (very slightly less) damage-per-round (DPR) compared to Battlemaster.
Because champion sucks compared to battlemaster.
Lavender Spectre For sure, Champion is very lack luster until the final tier of play compared to Battle Master but the Brute goes too far to compensate. Unlimited 1D4 vs a handful of D8s+abilities... In typical combats the Battle Master will likely be fine and not need to worry about resources but the Brute can keep swinging all day every day no matter the number of baddies and encounters. Obviously the dice size progresses as levels go up but think about it this way: it will outdamage magical weapons being used by other characters (obviously no To Hit bonus, though). The Devastating Critical ability is the second tier of the Barbarian crit ability but without the variation and a few damage points higher on average compared to if the Barb is using a Greateaxe, even more if any other weapon is used.
I like the Brute and I believe the Champion needs a boost but this is too much.
I love 5e but I wish you guys would workshop grappling a little. An improvised weapons grappler is something I always wanted to play but its just not up to snuff compared to a wielder tank.
Brute just seems like a boring champion reskin with better damage. I'd rather have something like a high risk and huge damage build with a focus on grappling and knocking stuff down. Maybe a focus on heavy weapons could help balance it so you can't just go Dex Archer and give your DM an fit.
That is very similar to what I was thinking.
I wish there were more options for the school of invention to customize spells. Maybe changing area of effect and adding status effects.
glad I’m not the only one with that attitude to the last of us
I would love to see more on the Phoenix Sorcerer
To be honest most complaints I saw about the Lore Master when the topic was being discussed in the community were from people misunderstanding the rules. They would come up with scenarios that were impossible unless the DM altered the rules, the skills had reasonable cool-downs and many of the "overpowered" applications people were complaining about. Granted some were problematic, but i nthe few times they happened the DM was able to take care of it.
Don't really like "invention" the flavor is great, but there's the Artificer, there's Mage Armor, Lore Mastery was great to play a nutjob nerd wizard that can bend spells with his wits
I love the Spore Druid and I love the Brute
I think the brute subclass is really good. I've changed my fighter from Champion to Brute on my campain and I really feel it got stronger and relevant on the battles, something I missed in the Champion subclass.
I love playing the Brute
I feel like Invention needs to be an Artificer subclass. To me when I looked invention initially it seemed just a really weird fit for wizard. Honestly making it artificer with more focus on the armor and being moddable [ kind of like the mechanist subclass in the Fan Revised version] with bonuses being able to be added on the higher level you go while giving Artificer a more melee focused subclass [ as Gunsmith gives him ranged, Alchemist gives him support and Mechanist gives him a mix of support or tank ] but in Normal artificer fashion making him less bulkier than others in the scrap and his buildings being his primary focus.
7:24 circle of spores druid
Honestly, I loved the Lore Master, and although I agree that some aspects should have been changed or nerfed, I don't think the school of Invention does that, or that it's a suitable subclass for a wizard at all.
Expending spell slots and randomness are not a bad mechanic per se, but are awful in context, it doesn't make it feel like a wizard at all, it would fit more a Sorcerer or, even better, an Artificer, which already filled the niche for "spellcaster focused on creation of constructs" that was behind it in the first place, making it redundant at best. Particularly since random spells cap at the Artificer's maximum level, making it look even more a subclass for it.
Also, it misses what was possibly the best part of the Lore Master, which is the expertise. Not only did wizard desperately need that (basic Rogues and Bards can gain that, Clerics have a subclass for it, but Wizard, whose basic concept is a lifestime of study of the arcane, have no official option that makes it expert in Arcana, it really feels off and unflavourful), but also worked great, since it isn't game breaking, has great flavor (if you play a Lore Master, you want to study and research) and has a lot of utility and options for gameplay outside combat (and even in, if used properly), and most of all it actually showed that it was the subclass used for research, instead the new armor not only removes all of that, making it instead look more combat-oriented, but also is extremely frustrating since it really feels like something that's supposed to scale up at higher levels, but never does.
I think spore circle is good- poison damage kills the class tho
Matthew Valentin or necrotic
Yeah, necrotic basically is the embodiment of decay. Dunno why they went with poison.
Maybe if and when they publish it it will do better dmg like the Whisper Bard which also dealt poison dmg and now it deals either poison or psychic (player choice)
Yeah, perhaps a choice between poison or necrotic for each damaging ability would benefit this subclass.
Some way to ignore resistances maybe?
Love circle of spores with the necromancy feel but through nature. Its gritty and gross and fun. Has a great theme. However poison damage is rather weak.
7 minutes to explain the wonky wizard class compared to 3 for the completely new druid concept tells you all you need to know about how unworkable and confusing the school of invention will be over the table.
The part that most liked was the random aspect on the wizard who is supposed to know how magic works?
Circle of spores sounds cool.
The spores look fantastic. I'd buff the initial thingy just a little, say 4 or 5 damage instead of 3, but thats coming from me and I don't know game design, so take it with a pinch of salt.
I’m interested in the brute, it’s seems to me at least like a barbarian that doesn’t/can’t rage but still get a dmg bonus. I do feel like there’s been a pure non magical heavy damage dealer missing though
Technically Warlocks have three decisions, Pact Boon, Patron and the Invocations.
So will these three plus the Centaur and Minotaur playable charts appear in the next book. I also would love to see Blood Hunter become an actual thing, yes I know it's a homebrewed class from the great Matthew Mercer but it's a very good class and deserves to be acknowledged.
Subnote: Just an idea for the next book's name, The New Adventurer's Guide. Yay or Nay. I don't know the lore to well so it's a bit of a safety net that I didn't add a character name and I doubt Drizzt Do'Urden would "write" a book like that or even release a book like that
I'm going to play a Brute named Brute. All he'll say is "I AM BRUTE!"
I'e just tried out the Brute and I really like it. Would love to see it optimized for a book.
Soooooo excited for the spore druid
And I still want the Lore Master subclass to happen along with Pyromancer mage and Summoner mage. Also I would love to see the fighter subclass of the Thayan Knight 😎💯
I love the new sub class
I think Brute is brilliant, for what it's worth. I'd rather have a Champion that's broken than the current champion that just blows, quite frankly.
Yeah, but I would really call it Champion 2.0. I was really disappointed because when I read the name of the subclass I got really exited: A mechanical alternative to the Champion but then I realized that only half of the features were unique and the other ones just recycled. Still want to see an original brute tho! :)
Yeah, so just make it Champion Revised.
Actually, returning to the loremaster and saving throws, when I play I completely negate meta-knowledge because I just don’t see any fun in the game if it’s all just numbers and whatnot. When I played the loremaster and changed the saving throw, I’d always include a description of how the spell affects the creature. If I didn’t describe to suit a Strength save my DM would tell me and I would change it to how he viewed it. I absolutely adored loremaster and every part of it; of course I understand completely based on how differently people’s play styles are compared to each other.
I like the brute, seems it only need some nerfs for TWF bonus damage, maybe should make it only trigger on main Attack action attacks and not Bonus action. Also thematically it should be for melee weapons only, now the wording also allows it for ranged weapons (in my head it only makes sense for melee weapons or strength weapons)
It should be 100% strength-based. Brute != Finesse
But why not just call it Champion Revised?
In my party I play a brute and that is exactly what we have done. Strength based melee attacks only
I'd like to see the brute be polished and published
I am 100% for Golgari druids, but I'll probably end up tweaking a few things on it from RAW.
LOVE THE BRUTE
Truth be told. I want kind of a punching Barbarian or Fighter. Monk is great but the fluff behind it really doesn't suit all my needs when I want my character to just run in head long and bring a personal beat down with the fist. Maybe a new set of fighting styles to make this kind of do able or a Sub class while he is raging the Barb can punch is better dice damage or as a bonus action. IDK just some fat to chew on.