Book of Shadows: The Shadow Dancer

This is the first archetype I decided to do for the upcoming Book of Shadows-Shadow Themed Archetypes series. The original shadow themed class, now a roguish archetype, Shadowdancer.




Tell me what you think down in the comments below!

In other news, the summer blogging schedule will be Mondays and Thursdays as I am spending the other days of the week working as fast as I can to get a playtest packet out for you guys to try Chronicle and Tale.

Til Thursday, happy shadowdancing, Arcanists!

Creating Characters- Part 1

Character creation is different depending on the game. This is no surprise, character creation should feel different depending on the game. The depth of character creation and the style will take a variety of forms. I think it also explains the homebrewing phenomenon in Dungeons and Dragons and even multiclassing. In order to understand this claim, we need to look at what creating a character is about. If you immediately answer with, “Creating a character,” I recommend you stay awhile and listen.

Dungeons and Dragons character creation ought to be contrasted to another system. Lets look at a system that uses a little bit more to actually define a character: Cypher system. Each character is created by proclaiming that the character is a ________ ________ who ___________. An adjective (charming, graceful, strong, etc.) noun (“class”), and a verb (your power or theme.) This immediately offers a new way of viewing your character. Of course, it is a summation with much more depth, but, at the same time, it is different mold than Dungeons and Dragons. In Dungeons and Dragons, we all make certain assumptions about characters based on their class-- Rogues are sneaky, bards are goofy, barbarians are dumb. Although that may not be true, a system like Cypher system’s does not immediately allow for this kind of assumption. The character sheet immediately gives a glimpse of what sort of character we are looking at by avoiding those class definitions altogether. Although 5e’s archetype system gives us a better look at what sort of character it is, it doesn’t define the character. There is more character information in an adjective more than there is in calling a character a monk in D&D. When you spout the mouthful that is Chaotic Good Noble High-Elf Multiclass Rogue/Bard Swashbuckler-College of the Sword we still know nothing about the character. In fact, we’re only told what their training is, not who they are. 5e’s addition of background has included an easily ignorable and in my opinion fairly bland attempt to create actual characterization. It isn’t a bad inclusion, but I think the character traits are suggested further only encourage the cookie cutter nature of the Dungeons and Dragons. You might say, “Derek, how is it a cookie cutter form of character creation when Cypher system offers you three slots to fill?” One word: Optimization. In Dungeons and Dragons it pays off to play strong classes like Wizard and Rogue. A good number of players don’t pick anything in D&D without considering what it does for them solely on mechanical level. However, I do believe 5e is more balanced than previous iterations, especially 3.5. 

That’s not to say that every player tries to optimize. There are many players, myself included, who try to build characters who are more based on a character concept. I think Cypher System does this better than Dungeons and Dragons does. You want a character that uses magic, but you want it to be light magic? Done. Now what's he or she like? Graceful? Charming? Done. Inside each of these character options are more choices. Dungeons and Dragons offers most of its choices once. At character creation. Spells, and feats don't really apply as these choices do not apply to everyone. At each step of progress, every player at the table is offered choices to make, and depending on the play style or character they want, one Warrior can feel very different from another. Depending on the character, even mage type characters can stand a decent chance of survival in melee. They aren't limited to being just "mages". Ultimately the characters are how the player and GM interpret them.
This isn't to say there is never overlap, but the way I might make a character is different than how you would make a character. 

Regardless, this does not inherently mean that either of these two systems are perfect. Another system with an interesting method of character creation is the Powered by the Apocalypse game, City of Mist from Son of Oak Game Studio. Each character is given tags that describes the character's abilities. For instance, one of your character's tags might be, "Master Swordsman." For any check that involves the character being a "Master Swordsman." You gain a single +1 to your roll. These tags can stack up to a bonus of +3. The only trade off are character related weaknesses. So if your character has a fear of heights, you'll have a penalty on anything related to that weakness. This model truly creates characters, however for players who want more mechanical representation this might feel that this isn't much of a game. It's hard to optimize a character in this system, but the story is key. What is optimal about a story? Nothing. A story is a story, the characters are not optimal people. They may be extraordinary, but they have flaws. City of Mist takes this into consideration and characters are exactly that: Characters. Numbers have less of a hold on this system allowing what is in and out of character to decide. 

Regardless of the system you land on, what defines a character will ultimately differ depending on how the system implements character creation. The in between pieces that the game might not reward are ultimately up to you, but it is nice when the mechanics reflect the identity of the character. As D&D is a perfect model of it, characters in some systems can only be so complex until the system is strained. Take one of my favorite PCs, Akyas for example. In concept he is an assassin/ detective/ spy/ hunter--Essentially he's almost Batman. If you look at how many ways there are to develop a Batman-esque character, that character could be exemplified by any class from the following: Fighter, Rogue, Monk, Ranger. However, there is a major issue with the D&D class model. If a character is a single class character, they will obviously have access to all of the best features of that class. Subclasses, as I have said previously, will help incorporate a theme into that base class, but the more complex a character is, the conventional character building model slips away. Skills help, sure, but when we want favored enemy, sneak attack, evasion, assassinate, extra attack, ambush, whirlwind attack, etc. We're looking at a character design that is a combination of a lot of cool ideas, but are more easily accomplished in 3.5 or pathfinder then in 5e. One might argue that it is because of how new 5e is. To a certain degree, that is true. There are not as many  character options in 5e as there are in 3.5 or pathfinder. At the same time, in both older games, there are more moving parts. Feats are gained at every third level defining character abilities outside classes, and ability scores improve on a separate but slower track. There in lies the role of homebrewing. Homebrewing and hacking your game is risky. I enjoy it as a creator, and I enjoy when players like my work. I personally don't like using my own homebrew classes because I feel like I am getting away with something.

If there a problem with these differences? How do we make up for them? Think it over. When we come back to this theme, we'll look at what defining a character should be and how I as a creator intend to deal with them as I continue developing Chronicle & Tale RPG. 
'Til Next Time, Happy Creating Arcanists!

Primal Path: Path of the Bloodied Fist

Sorry for the delay in posting, vacation hit hard, and I'm sadly not around the same resources for creating content. I'm working on a few projects at the moment, but this one came up not long ago and it seemed like a fun one to try out. Note, I had to use the Homebrewery to make it as my PDF converter is about as handy as a Flumpf, so it lacks the usual Mage College flair. This Barbarian Primal Path goes out to Samuel Allan! Hope this helps!



I hope to accomplish more this week before I go on my trip to Colossalcon.

Til then, happy brawling, Arcanists!

Re-imagining and Roleplaying Part 1

You've decided to play a Battle Master Fighter. Kevin, your table's optimizer says, "Oh, well at least isn't Champion, because that would be really boring." At this point you say, "Well, the story is with my character is that he's a Shadow Blade." Kevin raises an eyebrow and says, "he's a Battle Master." You reply, "Yeah, but his Lunging strike isn't a long fencing lunge, his shadow powers make the sword temporarily longer. His menacing strike manifests as a swarm of shadows that torment the mind of his target. That's also why as feats I took Stealthy and Skulker. There's not an archetype that does 'Shadow Blade' stuff, but this works!"
Kevin mutters something like "that works," and proceeds to create his Half-Elf Lore Bard because Kevin is that guy. Not that there is anything wrong with that.

Re-Imagining the Classes

In this "exercise" of character building, we try not to take classes for their face value. In the example above, we offer an alternative to the normal Battle Master fighter to make use of a simple flavor change. By considering a flavor change, the possibility of playable characters increases dramatically. Some classes are very well defined by their archetypes in 5e, but even then, remember that a class, or archetype is only a compilation of instructions and numbers. In addition to that, Feats, skills, and backgrounds can easily change the way a class might look on a character. Multiclassing also contributes to this over all idea. In each case the main idea is to break away from tropes that we associate with these classes. They can also open new benefits that your GM may consider as your character is not the usual sort.

Below are examples for the first three classes that may help inspire various iterations of different uses for a class:

Barbarian

Rage doesn't need to be "Rage." Rage could be instead some hidden power that the "barbarian summons." Ask yourself if you think Goku from Dragonball Z is just a monk. Super Saiyan isn't just a "rage"; it's a total power up. Rage as a concept could also be the release of a darker personality, or darker set of powers. Another example would be Devil May Cry's Dante. When Dante uses his Devil Trigger ability, he unleashes the demon powers within him. For a short while, Dante's speed and strength increases. A type of ability like this would be a great application of Frenzied Barbarian. Not every barbarian needs to be some guy in a loincloth who talks like the caveman version of Patrick Star and swings a greatsword around. Another pop culture reference would be Winston the gorilla from Blizzard's Overwatch. Winston is the smartest character in the game, but in his ultimate ability, he enters a primal rage and his fury fuels his power. Outside of that, Winston is a well spoken character, an inventor, and more civilized than the human character Roadhog. Roadhog is more like your classic barbarian.

Also remember, that each archetype offers a new use or flavor for your Rage ability. Rage doesn't have to be entering a screaming bloodlust-driven fury. It can be though. When considering backgrounds, an Outlander Barbarian may be your loincloth clad murderhobo, however, you may have a criminal background barbarian who is more a "thug". One villain in one of my campaigns I run is a Pirate background barbarian/fighter. Essentially, this character, Corvis, is more like a corsair. An entertainer barbarian could very well be a strong-man in a circus. 

Bard

Everyone has the same image of bards. Critical Role's Scanlan Shorthalt, is perhaps the epitome this trope. Mind you, I think Sam Riegel is the coolest guy, and I love Scanlan, but playing a witty, lecherous, goofy, bard does not have to be what you sign up for when you write "bard" on your character sheet. Not to say that Scanlan is one-dimensional either. In one of our more recent games, Andy (DM Starhelm) played a Dragonborn College of War bard but was nothing like the normal interpretation of bard. He was instead a skald. For those of you unfamiliar with what a skald is, a skald is a "composer and reciter of poems honoring heroes and their deeds." (Thanks Google.) However, skalds are often interpreted in roleplaying games as being rougher, viking/barbarian-esque heralds of battle. In our game of White Plume Mountain,he played a lore bard who was more a treasure hunter than a traditional bard. His character, Julius was more the Indiana Jones/Nathan Drake kind of adventurer. As he came across varying puzzles, and the like, I didn't make him roll "knowledge" checks. He was a level 9 bard who was a treasure hunter/dungeon delver. If he saw something he usually would have some comparable familiarity as far as most standard traps were concerned. What's more, Andy played him like a character who knew what he was doing. As a DM, I was happy to offer more because of that specific profession the character had.

There may not be a lot to each bard college, but remember that bard's are combinations of skills and magic. The skills you choose and the spells you pick can make each bard seem different. Besides, how does a bard that has the entertainer background differ from a bard with the spy background, or the far traveler background (Sword Coast Adventurer's Guide)? A spy bard is probably a trickster of some kind. The College of Whispers is perfect for this bard, who may be more of a back-stabbing scoundrel. An entertainer bard might not be some smooth-talking minstrel, but could be an enchantingly beautiful flautist with a mysterious but magnetic presence. For those of you that like more East Asian style fantasy, geisha would almost definitely be bards.

Cleric

Clerics tend to differ by their domain pretty frequently, but abstracting the concepts further may prove useful. A knowledge domain cleric could be more like one of the Greek oracles. A tempest cleric could be a sort of Thor-esque character (as obvious as that is). Flavor-wise, a nature domain cleric could be more like a shaman and rather than serving a specific god, takes a more animism approach. Maybe their spells manifest more in the form of aspects of animals. This of course could be argued about druids, but by nature (pun intended) they are very similar. The entire class rather than being priestly in nature could be interpreted as a being closer to the divine than than just being a cleric. Perhaps having cleric as a class is more liken unto being a demigod? I see plenty of homebrews that try to create angels, gods, etc. Each one of them usually is, as you'd expect grossly overpowered. Why can't a cleric be reskinned to fit this kind of character if someone wants to play one so badly. If you think back to the days of AD&D Elf and Dwarf had their own classes. In 5e's design a race be a class is absurd. There isn't any reason why you couldn't say that is what the cleric class can be used as, it represents a connection to the divine and by the end of the class progression, they can perform miracles, and in the eyes of less powerful individuals, what appear to be acts of a god.

Considering backgrounds while making a cleric could also be an interesting influence in the character as a whole. A cleric who is more of an exorcist could be the Haunted One, or Investigator background, and produce more of a John Constantine type character. A charlatan cleric could easily be some kind of false prophet, or a trickery cleric who uses his divine ability to go about his business in a more dishonest manner. A sailor cleric could be a divine blessed ship captain with the tempest domain, or a pirate who commands the storm to aid in his plundering.

More to Come

 As this is a long topic, I will cover the other classes in continuations of this article. Let me know if you have any good ideas in the comments down below. Until next time, happy reinventing, Arcanists!

The Worst Status Condition- Part 2: Inflicting Death and Dying

Death's Role

Now that you've established death's role in your game. You can begin to employ it as a mechanic. After all, you have hit points in most games, or a death spiral, or something of the sort. What most GM's should do is explain what dying entails.

For example, in the Acquisitions Incorporated games as run by Chris Perkins, death is escapable. Spoiler warning: After Wil Wheaton's character Aeofel dies, the rest of Acquisitions Inc. were able to go to another plane to save his soul, and pull him back from the afterlife. In Critical Role, spells that resurrect the dead can fail, making the person to be resurrected lose any chance to be resurrected from then on.  In games like Cypher system, or Star Wars RPG, dead is just that. Dead. Though, those games tend to have a greater threshold for death. That is, it takes more work to kill a character, unless the circumstance is entirely unsurvivable. "How does it take more work?" you might ask. Systems like that (unless death is all part of the fun like in Dungeon Crawl Classics) tend to use different action economies. My Star Wars RPG character, Dash, has only 14 hit points.  Thanks to his training a Makashi Duelist (think Count Dooku) when someone hits him in melee, he can parry it to reduce the damage significantly. This is whenever he is attacked, mind you. However, if he uses this ability, he does take an amount of strain that represents his exhaustion. In addition to his armor which reduces damage further, Dash has a pretty good chance of survival despite having a whopping 14 hit points.

With this example we're given a fun equation:





Chance of (R)esurrection over (M)ortality (number of hit points) times m(I)tigation of damage is equal to (E)ase of death.  Now this isn't a concrete equation, its a representation. You math majors, put away your calculators. The chance for resurrection and the closeness to death (hit points) are related at first. Take D&D for instance. By level 10 most people are sporting over 100 hit points. That is a barrage of pokes from several dozen goblins. In real life it could take one. Lethality in real life is more of a binary scale. Of course, repeated harm "stacks" as we nerds would say about anything. However, generally something kills you, or it doesn't. You can be grievously wounded, but you're dealing with homeostasis. The human body, (or living things rather) tries to right itself. They're brilliant systems. If someone was stabbed to death, generally its organ failure and moreso blood loss that is their undoing. The wounds were simply a vehicle for irreversible tip in the balance of homeostasis. Hit points can't reflect homeostasis well. Though they do reflect fragility. The hardest your barbarian can hit someone in a single hit with a normal greatsword in D&D 5th edition is 23 damage assuming Strength is a 24 and you are raging. 23 damage. The most resilient 2nd level rogue (Con of +5, 2d8 HD) possible can survive that (26 hp). If someone was more than twice as strong as the average individual, stronger than a hill giant, most normal people would be dead several times over from such a hit. Games like Dungeon Crawl Classics and Dungeon World relish this mortality. 

Death Comes

So in these power heavy games how do we make death real?

Well if you have decided that you want death to be semi-permanent, proceed with caution. If death is permanent or semi-permanent, that's fine but be prepared for some comments from people who like clerics. Your necromancers, however, will be happy if they like more corpses lying about because undead will be even more taboo and spooky.

However, if resurrection is relatively more easy, don't be afraid to throw death and injury at your players more readily. If it can be healed (with work) why not? One of the coolest things I did to a character was his arm got cut off, but because he was an artificer, and he made himself a really cool magical prosthetic arm.

To utilize injury and death I have a few recommendations:

The Dungeon Master's Guide has some pretty great rules for massive damage found on page 273. These rules allow for creatures to be killed more easily if they take damage equal to more than half their hit points, but other results can happen such as being knocked unconscious, stunned, or an equivalent of dazed. This is one more reason I use exploding damage dice. Massive damage is easier to inflict.

The page before it has a list of potential injuries that a character might sustain, however the suggested triggers for this are on a critical hit, dropping to 0 hit points, or failing a death saving throw by 5 or more. The second one is fine, however, every time someone takes a critical hit, they would have a chance to lose a limb, or an eye, or some such injury. I would stipulate that they might have to make a Constitution save with a DC equal to half the damage they took before rolling on a table after every critical hit, or else your characters will look like the squad of bad guys from Logan. Everyone and their mother would have a prosthetic.

Coup de Grace: Coup de grace was an action in 3.5 that you could take against a "helpless" creature. You automatically hit the creature and it was a critical hit. The creature had to roll a Fortitude save equal to 10 + the damage dealt or die.

To fit this into 5e, as most of our game hacking goes, you could apply similar to an incapacitated creature. (Maybe you'd have to still make the attack roll against a restrained creature). The saving throw DC for a Constitution save is 15 (like Massive Damage). If the creature fails it is automatically dead (or dying if you want a little cushioning between your players and the Reaper)

For killing creatures by surprise, this rule could also be used. A lot of players tend to be unhappy that you can't just take someone by surprise in D&D and almost definitely kill them unless "your numbers are higher than their numbers." You could also use the same rule to knock creatures out rather than killing them.

Reason: Maybe something that shouldn't be survivable happens, like falling into lava, being launched into space, being thrown infinitely because of the  a Setting Sun practitioner. (Seriously, 3.5?) As a GM it is totally fine to say something kills someone if it is impossible to survive. Especially if choices have lead to it. Not obnoxious arbitrary rolls (Never make death the result of a natural 1 on a check, I will tear apart "nat 1's" someday soon), but the result of choices. Death is a rational result for a series of choices. Did the dwarf choose to jump into the lava? If yes, than that is a dumb choice unless he is immune to fire damage. 

Ultimately, death is reasonable. As a GM, you control death. Do you want a fight to be particularly lethal? Does death sound like a reasonable result for an attack and ultimately speed up your process, thus saving you from a 10 minute encounter with Steve the guard who is the first of many guards? GMs call the shots but what is most important is consistency.



Coming this week and next:
Redefining classes
More Magic Items
A Monk that knows how to throw down

Homebrew Reward Promotion: College of Medicine

Today's Hombrew Reward goes out to Inaq a.k.a. @Radibaghdadi. I was asked to create a healing Bard, and hopefully I succeeded. Thus I present to you the Bard College: The College of Medicine. Now all of you can finally impress your family and friends by telling people you're a doctor and it will only partially be a lie!




Throughout this week, the Mage College makes up for lost time as we continue our look into death in rpgs, binary/pass fail, and Gestalt as a concept.

Don't think I've forgotten about the Summoner, as time goes on I will take steps to further its production. Also, if opportunity presents itself, I may be able to do a playtest report for Chronicle & Tale in the coming months.

Til then, do no harm, Arcanists!

Promotion Reward Program- Sorcerous Origin: Langour

This sorcerous origin was made for @NanbanJim on twitter. He's an awesome guy who like my other "victims" has been very welcoming to me, and has helped the Mage College get a little more attention as of late!

Without further ado, the sleep/hypnotist archetype: The Langour Sorcerer!




 We pick back up Wednesday talking about the worst status condition....

Til then, sweet dreams, Arcanists!

Promotion Reward Archetype: Circle of the Mist

This archetype was created for the awesome Maxine Baughman. She's a multi-talented multimedia presence who has been an awesome help welcoming me to the Twitterverse and has already helped a bunch by sharing and supporting the blog! Definitely check out Maxine's twitter: @Maxine_Baughman. Follow her, retweet, etc.

Without any further ado, by request I present the trickster-esque Druid Circle: Circle of the Mist!

 

Ranger Conclave: Crimson Seeker

Today's homebrew is the result of a poll I posted on twitter. Thank you to the voters in the Twitterverse. You voted, and I delivered. Here's rehash of 4e's Crimson Hunter, remade into a Ranger Conclave.

Feedback is always very welcome. For those of you on twitter, there will be more polls to come for what you want to see. If anyone has any requests of what you want to see in the future let me know in the comments, in an email, or on Twitter.

But for now, happy hunting!

The Archmage’s Alternate Rules: Part 1

The Archmage’s Alternate Rules: Part 1

One of the most fun aspects of any tabletop roleplaying game is being able to tinker with the rules and create an experience that you and the rest of your group is interested in having. Over my course of GMing in Dungeons & Dragons there have been several rules we have expanded on and revised over time for the sake of our game. Some of these you may have seen me mention or explain before, but I wanted to give an idea of all rules currently used or considered for any 5e game that I run.

“Spider-Sense Initiative” or Awareness Initiative

A lot of us are familiar with Spiderman. If Spiderman was a D&D character, his initiative would be ridiculously high, but any of us who know anything about Spiderman know that it is arguable as to whether his initiative is based on his Dexterity, i.e. his superhuman reflexes, or his famous and extra-quotable “Spider-Senses”. Essentially, Spiderman’s reaction time are always augmented by this 6^th sense that gives him omnidirectional awareness of the world around him. We could argue one of three things, Spiderman has a super high Dexterity, he has the Alert feat, he combines his Dex & Wisdom on his initiative rolls, OR he can use his Wisdom modifier on his initiative checks… plus having Alert.

In many turn based video games, there is often a speed factor in combat. Pokemon is a prime example. I have Pikachu, have Blastoise. I use Thunder, you had a Blastoise. Speed factors, like Initiative assume it is only based on reflexes. Though Spiderman, and real life beg to differ. Awareness plays a tremendous part in response time. 3.5 highlighted this well their rules for the “surprise round.” In lieu of this, there is a “surprised” state in 5e. Surprise and awareness are not two halves of the same coin. Surprised creatures still roll initiative, they just can’t move or act. However, awareness and perception play no greater part in initiative. It is you’re surprised or you’re not. In this contest everyone but Dexterity based characters loses. Fast characters, yet again have the upper hand.

What about creatures that are just aware, and ready to act? In a real fight, the guy who is more ready, is usually the winner, not the guy who is faster. The guy who is faster has a physical advantage, but it is not the only factor.

So we have two versions of the Awareness Initiative:

A creature may use its Dexterity or Wisdom modifier to determine its initiative bonus.

OR

A creature adds its Dexterity + its Wisdom modifier to determine its initiative bonus.

In this style of initiative, the first rule allows characters with high Wisdom scores to compete with characters with high Dexterity scores. If your healer closer to first, he has less work to do early on, but if he is always going last, he has the hardest job.

The second version allows the two concepts of Speed and Awareness to play a direct roll with each other as they do in more realistic situations. With a lower attribute with either, the character will be, naturally, less ready to fight, but that is more of a reason to be careful choosing your ability scores, however, this doesn’t doom characters to always go first or last still, it gives a better chance to characters of more mediocre stats. If you have +3 in Dex, and a +1 in Wisdom, congrats! You now have a much higher chance of going before say, an adult red dragon who would only get a +1 to initiative rather than a flat +0. Solars, the Fabio-esque celestials, would get an other worldly +13 to their initiative which is more befitting than just a +6 because (sarcasm warning) a level 1 halfling rogue is, of course, almost as likely to be as fast as an archangel in combat readiness. If you look at the Monk, you may notice that the Monk’s Unarmored Defense bonus is based off of this same formula. Monks, would of course, have amazing initiatives. Have you seen a Jet Li movie? If you can move like that, there is no way you aren’t ready for a fight.

Of the two, I am more likely, with my player’s permission, to use the second of the two. It will create a more interesting dynamic for players, and alter how battle tends to go. Keep in mind, should a character get a bonus to initiative from a class feature, it will propel them ahead, but no more than it already does. Should you use this rule, be careful with your dump stats.

Ready and Waiting rule

I have encountered another problem regarding initiative: How does it feel when you roll a natural 20 on initiative, and the guy who rolled a 15 goes before you? Same team or not, it doesn’t feel great. Your character was ready and waiting to act. There is no reward for it. Traditionally, we like to be rewarded for natural 20’s and punished for natural 1’s. Like may be a strong word, but it is tradition. To right this, I employ what I call the Ready and Waiting rule: 

When a creature rolls a 20 on an initiative check, the creature has advantage on the first attack roll or ability check it makes in that encounter. If a creature rolls a 1 on an initiative check, it has disadvantage on its first attack roll or ability check it makes in that encounter.

In essence, it is a pretty simple rule for a simple concept, if you are at your most ready, you should have the highest chance of success, at your most unprepared… well, the opposite.

Morale Advantage/Disadvantage

Aside from being shaken, as we once called it, or frightened, there is very little that is representative of the emotional effect that the events of the game have on the characters. DM_Starhelm, aka Andy told me about a method used in one of the many podcasts he listens to, in which on a natural 1, when the character fails at whatever they are trained at, the GM asks the player, what went wrong in the fiction of the game. If that isn’t enough and you want some backup to your natural 1’s and 20’s I recommend the following:

When you roll a 20 on an ability check, you gain advantage on the next ability check you make within the next minute. When you roll a 1 on an ability check, you gain disadvantage on the next ability check you make within the next minute.

This rule is reflective of a character’s confidence, and hitting a “streak” of sorts. People have off days, and on days, people perform better when they are confident and less so when they are shaken by something. I would rather see this system used than the cockamamie idea that a natural 1 or natural 20 cause the impossible to happen. You can’t intimidate doors, you can’t seduce mindless undead, if you fall a distance of 2 feet, you don’t explode on impact! A natural 20 meant you did your utmost, not that reality now bends for you. A natural 20 is not always an automatic success, because I can try to jump into a different dimension by using a human slingshot, a radio antenna, and a copy of Hitchhiker’s Guide. I promise you it will not work 5% of the time. If we want to reward/punish these numbers to make more interesting gaming, use these play forward rewards/penalties. If you think advantage or disadvantage is too much, add or subtract an extra half of your proficiency modifier to the next roll instead.

Exploding Dice

In a previous article, I wrote about exploding dice. Essentially when you roll damage from an effect, if you roll the maximum number on a damage die, roll another of the same type and add it to the roll. If you roll the maximum number again, do it again. Continue this process until no dice have rolled the maximum number. As a personal rule, I tend not to use this with things like persistent damage like poisons and the like, because no one wants to die from a bad cut from a Sword of Wounding, but that’s just me.

However, I did not expand upon two important rules I learned to add later on: Healing, and how to handle critical hits. To keep healing from being disproportionate, because miracles do happen, actual healing die (not temporary hit points) do explode. If damage explodes only, that makes healing far less effective, especially if someone only has a 1^st level Cure Wounds waiting.  This also, makes healing potions far more effective. Rolling 2d4 + 2 can be a disastrous waste of an action/bonus action. It may save a life, but on a result of 4 (1+1+2), that grants you one more hit, which may turn the tide of battle, but that isn’t really healing. It’s practically only triage, at that point.

Exploding dice are to add a new element of danger into the combat to emphasize lethality. Critical hits as they have existed in table top gaming can be pretty weak. No one likes rolling a 1 on a critical hit and doubling it, or as 5e has, rolling snake eyes on a critical hit. Critical hits can feel seldom critical. All of that design space went to people like rogues, paladins, and even my own duelist and slayer. Exploding damage however, explores this pretty well. However, when you introduce exploding damage dice, what happens to critical hits? A “critical” hit can be weaker than an exploding die. To fix this, I introduced the following rule on top of exploding damage:

When you score a critical hit, rather than rolling twice the damage dice, maximize the damage from each die, and roll the damage dice once adding it to the maximum result. When you roll the damage dice, any exploding dice still apply.

For example, if you have 1d8 damage with a Strength +3 from a longsword, and you score a critical hit your damage will become 1d8 + 11 (3 +8). Having a starting point assures that critical hits will be at least as good as a normal exploding dice, with the potential of being better. However, I would also recommend an alternative. Damage as good, but as my wizarding friend Nick, would remind me, damage is a stupid use of a spell. Extra damage alone, may not be as good. So thus why critical hits on a natural 20 could, and probably should have a little bit more oomph to them. Fighters, Hexblades, and Magus (Mage College Homebrew) have an expanded critical hit range. If critical hits alone are rewarded then these three classes, (two if you don’t want to use Magus), will be even further augmented to be more dangerous than they already are. Setting an extra effect on a natural 20 levels that playing field in doing damage and adding an effect. This brings us to a rule I call Effective Critical. Effective Critical is partially based in Monte Cook’s Cypher system, Dungeon World, and real world combat application.

In Cypher System, on a critical hit, the player gets to add a minor or major effect to the attack, depending on a roll of 19 or 20, and this is, in part, discussed by the player and GM. Dungeon World is very based in narration and the method of deciding how things occur play out more like a discussion between player and GM. In a real world fight a critical hit is reflective of placing a strike exactly where you want it. Combining these aspects, it encourages narration and creativity. Effective Critical works as following when applied by itself to the normal game:

When you score a critical hit with a roll of 20 on the die, in addition to dealing extra damage, with the help of your DM you may determine an additional effect to try to apply as part of the critical hit. The DM should specify a duration for the effect, and any conditions that apply at their discretion.

Should you fear that the granting something through this kind of dialogue may be a bit much, you can instead add the following stipulation:

The creature must roll a saving throw as determined by the DM to resist the effect after damage is rolled, receiving the full effect on a failed save, and a lesser adverse effect on a successful save. The saving throw DC is 8 + the attacker’s proficiency bonus + their attack modifier.

With the Exploding Dice mechanic attached to the DC variation add the following line:

For every damage die that explodes as part of this critical hit, increase the DC to resist the adverse effect by 1.

Example effects:
On a failed Constitution saving throw the target is stunned until the start of your next turn, on a successful save, it has disadvantage on attack rolls and ability checks, and can’t use reactions.

On a failed Constitution saving throw the target is blinded for 1 minute. At the each of the end of its turns, it may repeat its saving throw at the end of each of its turns to end this effect. On a successful save, it has disadvantage on Wisdom (Perception) checks, attack rolls, and Dexterity saving throws.

By opening the discussion for these effects to take place, critical hits will feel more “critical”. One of D&D’s weakness is that called shots tend to be a mess. With this modification it puts a little bit more control in player’s hands with DMs help, and will make fights more interesting. Do not hesitate to use this rule against players as well, the same goes for any combat rule, unless you want to give your players a definite example, but we don't need kid gloves on do we?

Wrapping Up

I will work on a compendium of these extra rules for D&D 5e that I have come up with or developed, and that will be a separate page. You may notice I have changed a few things in the lay out, there is now a link to the "Laboratory" which is a link to the google drive folder that houses all the available homebrew at the top of the page. You can now search the blog, and more easily look through previous articles by month.

Coming this week:
New Ranger Conclave: The Crimson Arrow
The third and final draft of Slayer

Next week:
We take a look at how to create the perfect Summoner.
The Worst Status Condition: Death
Magus: Version 2

Duelist: Final Draft (?)

It with much pleasure I present the potentially final draft of the core Duelist class. This potentially final copy includes the two-weapon favoring Tempest, and the Master Thrower. Major changes are the number of talent points you get (half level + talent) and Unparalleled Talent now just only restores 4 talent points.  If you have comments or suggestions, go ahead and let me know.

Any archetype posted for Duelist after this will be added on in separate files.

A lot in store this week. Til then, happy dueling, Arcanists.

Tabletop One-on-One, Part One.

When I first started GMing tabletop games, I thought the idea of playing one-on-one, GMing for a single person was entirely possible, but what  I didn't realize is that it is an entirely different game. My first major experience with this was my friend Mike DMing for me as my favorite PC. I later carried this story on to DM for my wife in the same fashion, and we now have one-on-one tabletop gaming as one of our favorite pass times. There is a very strange dynamic to one-on-one games, and there are a few things to take into consideration before you as a GM or a player wade into a one-on-one game:


The Difference

In a one-on-one game the focus can and often does shift from a party-centric story to a player character centered story. This will allow your player to really dig into playing the type of character they want to and make decisions as their character would. This will also help the GM learn the character, and later, should the character be incorporated into a group, the player and the GM will be able to understand better how to keep the character involved in the story. This player-centric story can be a lot of fun to create, and usually has a plethora of good roleplaying opportunities. This is especially good for players who are newer, or even more quiet at the table.  However, these new perspective means several shifts will occur in the mechanics and the dynamic between the GM and player. As this is a brief summary we'll skim these before we visit them in full articles.

Harder On Everyone?

In terms of playing difficulty, unless the GM runs a a GMPC or uses a hireling system of some kind, your challenge ratings for enemies won't be accurate as they would in a four person party. If a gm for a one-on-one player is going to challenge that player. It is important to carefully consider the character that the player is using to create challenges. Some systems like the newer Scarlet Heroes has rules to fix the scale for one on one play. Scarlet Heroes' fix for this is using a different damage system and what is called a "Fray die" that sort of cinematically help deal with "minions," so solo characters can deal with larger encounters faster and with the odds less stacked against them. 

It may also be difficult for the player at times to feel in charge of the story, and they could very well feel like the story idea that the gm is offering doesn't match up with their character. Sometimes, it is better to resolve it to be more sandbox like until something more attention grabbing comes along. In a one-on-one session, the player may feel less compelled to follow what will feel more like a "generic quest for some adventurers." The very nature of this style of session is to allow the character navigate as they would like. To some degree, this style of game allows the GM to be more reactionary than proactive. The player will innately indicate where they want to take the character by asking questions. Railroading a player in this style of session will only upset them as much as any other player.

Even though the player is in charge of where they are going and constantly telling the GM where they're are headed to next, it is still, coincidentally, more work for the GM in these kinds of things. The GM is not planning in advance but instead needing to react to the desires of the player. Of course, this isn't always the case but it is common for the GM needing to either improvise more, or plan accordingly after the fact.

Easier On Everyone!

However, ultimately, one on one can allow the player and the GM to take more time with their roles. Because of my own one-on-one sessions, my homebrew setting has been much more fleshed out, making larger games much easier to manage. With the player at the forefront of the story, the party decision discussion which can be overly long, and with the wrong players take most of a session, the story moves faster, and you can accomplish more. In another interesting note, the GM gets a better glimpse as to how player mechanics work and why. Rather than having to try to acclimate to four character classes to GM for, the GM will become very familiar with a single one, and may very well gain a better insight as to the design ideas behind the class. I don't think that without my extensive experience with these kinds of games/sessions that my homebrews would be as cohesive as they are.

Another reward to one on one sessions, is that because they follow a single player, that player could even create other characters that should they not feel like playing one story one week, they can instead use another character allowing them to stay interested in the game without boredom. Probably one of the worst feelings is being "stuck" with a character you don't like.

Communication between the GM and player is, of course, easier. It is a 1:1 ratio, and therefore the game that the two want to play can be made more easily. Sometimes when a party has a problem with the GM communication can be less direct and there can be more drama, confusion, and general lack of fun while forgetting the key idea of the game; Having fun.  Though mechanically the styles are different, one-on-one games are an awesome way to hang out with a friend who may be too busy to join a full game, or for you guys to scratch that gaming itch.

Summing Up

One-on-one games are big topic to cover, and I would definitely attest that with a bit of practice, the pros outweigh the cons. I will be talking more about this in the future, as you may be able to tell in the title. Next time we approach this subject, we'll talk more about the mechanical end of things and what it does to the story.

Til then, happy one-on-one-ing, Arcanists. 

The Magus Class

Today, after much work, sweat and delay, is the first draft of the magus. The magus is based on the 3.5 duskblade, the 4e sword mage, and the pathfinder magus. The main idea here was to have a character skilled both in combat and magic. Let me know what you guys think! This probably was the most extensive first draft I've done. The others will be released over time like with duelist.

As a forewarning, the formatting may have been a little strange and will be improved as I update it.

Happy Warmaging, Arcanists!

Content Update and Preview: Magus

Magus is coming along, it is pretty big project, but I wanted to let you guys know it will be, at the latest, up Monday. I will give you a brief overview of what to expect:

Magus is half casting, martial focus class based on the Duskblade from 3.5, the Swordmage from 4e and the Magus from Pathfinder. Each Magus, like Fighters, Paladins, and Rangers, receive a fighting style from the choices of Dueling, Great Weapon Fighting, Archery, or Two Weapon Fighting. The pillars of the class are Arcane Strike, which works like a magically charged sneak attack, essentially, for every spell slot level you have available, you get to deal an extra 1d6 force damage. So racking up a 5d6 at level 17. Other abilities are made available, all with incentive to hold onto your spell slots,. but with a spell list that makes it worth it to cast spells. Mitigating your casting will be a task, but you are rewarded for both holding onto your spells, and casting them.

The Magus uses a prepared spell casting, and pre-known spell list like the Paladin. However, they are an Intelligence based casters as their spell lists are derived from a study in imbued spells and ingenuity. Each archetype known as a Magus Paradigm grants themed bonus spells. The magus will becoming with a good number of archetypes, like the duelist is. They being added in pairs as they are tested and reviewed. The first two coming out will be the  Sword Mage and Pyreblade, the first focusing on the core of magical manipulation with weapon mastery, the second being a blade(weapon) wielding pyromancer. For those of you keeping track, Arrador from the Duel in the Clock Tower story is a Pyreblade.

Finally, the last pillar of the class takes the form of Arcane Imbuements. The Magus bonds a nonmagical weapon to themselves, turning it into a magical weapon, and adds a number of abilities and properties to the weapon over time. Many of these abilities emulate properties of existing magical items, and some are new to 5e and are rehashes of old item properties. Design wise, I am tweaking 3.5's item enhancement system. They may also be helpful for GMs to create some non-magus magical items as well. The most important part is that the magical item created this way only functions for the magus, but doesn't require attunement. A Magus can very well attune to and use a magic weapon, but it won't provide the same benefit as using his bonded weapon.

I look forward to releasing the first draft of this content to you guys. After this base class is finished, I will take a small break from new base classes, square up the duelist and slayer, and focus on archetypes. Let me know what classes you want to see archetypes, and themes you're interested in seeing.

Happy spell slinging, Arcanists!

Slayer: Version 2

After some time having not worked on it, I opened up my Slayer class that I developed earlier this year, and did some editing and adding. Before I introduce the newly updated slayer, I thought I would share what the development plan for my work is. After I post it here, and get feedback from you all on this blog, I'll also put it up on r/UnearthedArcana and r/DnDHomebrew, depending on feedback and discussion, I'll further edited to show you guys, and this stuff does get playtested. Once I feel that it is basically where I and prospective players want it to be, I plan on, with the help of my wife who is a very talented artist get this stuff up on dmsguild in a full art form. However, there will still be these basic versions of the classes here. In the future there will be pages (somewhere) on the blog dedicated to completed titles with links to the full art, full flavor text version downloads from dmsguild. These will be entirely "Pay What You Want" downloads for the full art, full flavor text versions. I'm not going to lie and say, "I'm not hoping to make anything with these," because it would be cool to be able to start making a little bit of pocket change from a hobby that I love, but I won't restrict access to them. I'm not going to start something like a Patreon yet because I don't know that I can be that reliable on a monthly basis to do something big like that every month. Honestly, I don't want to develop too many more base classes. As long as ideas flow, I will create archetypes, races, magic items, but after Magus, Summoner, Duelist, Slayer, and [redacted], I don't really want to push that boundary unless something really unique comes along. I will also continue to create archetypes for these new classes, as long as the ideas are there. I'll continue to release archetypes for these classes as I am inspired to do so, but I do want to focus on the base twelve classes.




In other news, a new Unearthed Arcana from WotC dropped today featuring Drunken Master for Monk, Oath of Redemption, and Monster Slayer (more on that later).

Any feedback is always welcome. Thank you for your continued support, and happy hunting, Arcanists.

New Martial Archetype: Dervish

In contrast with duelist, don't think that I have forgotten about fighter. For those of you questioning how and why do they exist at the same time, consider this: Duelists are the wizards of combat, with a number and variety of tricks that their specialization offers, fighters while having specializations and their own style of combat, use their specializations as just that, the cap of their abilities rather than the base, which they are known for. Fighters are not defined by their specializations but enhanced by them while duelists are defined and enhanced by their schools.

On that note, I give you the Dervish:

Enjoy, you future dervish dancing Arcanists!

Update: I changed the Dervish Dance extra damage to an extra 1d6 per hit.

Duelist Version 3

I'm happy to announce Duelist is in it's third edit. Very minimal changes outside the addition the Dreadnought and the Bastion. This class has gotten really good reviews on r/DnDHomebrew. The only major change is Arcane blades can now change their Deft Strike damage type while under the effects of their Enchanted blade, and if you look closely, the last two archetypes left to release are now listed as Tempest and Flying Blade. Your feedback is eternally welcome and I am very happy for what you guys have helped me accomplish this far. I was admittedly confused by one comment I had about organization of the class, so if you feel like that could be handled better let me know, as I have only received the one comment about it thus far, but it does make me want to know if anyone else has formatting or organization related comments.


 

  In other news, the first draft of Magus comes out this week, along with the first edit/touch up for Slayer and I am really excited to get it out to you guys. Summoner is proving tricky but stay tuned for more articles and a couple archetypes and magic items here and there as we move forward this week. Blog productivity will only increase (I hope) once April is over and then there will be more fun projects I can't wait to work on for you guys.

But for now, happy dueling, Arcanists!

In the Beginning

Now that I am back to my computer after four days of feeling like the dead, I figured I would start in a vein of articles directed towards those just joining us, but, veteran arcanists, don't fret, you'll be able to take something away from these as well.

While I was at PAX East, I met a lot of fellow nerds out there who either hadn't experienced both sides of tabletop roleplaying (usually GMing), didn't know how to adapt to a new edition of Dungeons & Dragons, or haven't played in any capacity altogether. So, we'll start from the beginning, and I will try to keep this brief, as some arcanists don't have the same attention span for long articles. 

Getting Started

My story may not be ideal, but I was thrown into Dungeons & Dragons as the GM in a random week in November of 2013. I was an avid Magic: The Gathering player at the time, but was still pretty reluctant to play Dungeons & Dragons. In my mind, that D&D stigma that we're just seeing lift was pretty real. I had played once or twice in a terrible introduction to the game in a group of ten people in 4th Edition, in a story that didn't make much since with a character I didn't know how to play. Effectively, at the start of my role as Game Master, it would be the first time I really played Dungeons & Dragons. DM Starhelm, who was also in this original game, was technically more equipped than I was, given his long history of his nose buried deep in R.A. Salvatore novels, having an eclectic understanding of the fantasy genre, and being able to argue Lord of the Rings like he went to law school in Minas Tirith. In fact, he read fantasy novels more than he did homework when we were in highschool. But nope! It was me; I was to be GM.

We were using not just 3rd Edition, either, but 3.5. Some of you who have played and DM'ed 3.5 may be wincing at the thought of this poor, new GM running a game of 3.5 for the first time ever. In retrospect, I wince at the thought too. So, I got myself generally acquainted with the rules, looked at character creation, monsters, magic items, and so on. Fortunately my background in Magic gave me a decent leg-up as far as the fantasy setting is concerned.  After I had became passingly familiar with the rules, I dove into the story. I came up with a general setting, inspired by 16th century Europe, the characters for the story I wanted to tell, and most importantly the villain. I spent more time than anything on that villain. He's actually, in our most recent iterations of the setting, still an important character and ally these days but generally everyone's favorite companion NPC/DMPC. Creating that villain the way I did, I think saved the game overall (I'll get there). Since then, I rose to be a lot of people's favorite GM, and at least good in the eyes of others. 

Key to Success

What was my secret? Well, if I can be frank, I didn't have a damn clue what I was doing, and that worked! It was because I went in willing to accept things rather than to reject them that I created a game people wanted to play. Don't get me wrong, saying "No", as a GM is important. In my first session, I butchered the concept of AC and Reflex saving throws, but it made for an awesome encounter because I at least got the scene right. DM Starhelm's half-elf rogue got into a very Jason Bourne fast paced scrap in an alleyway with a baddie, and it turned out great. It doesn't hurt if you have a group of new players, to tell them to pick up dice, establish some quick rules, and then referee. At least not at first. It is pretty proportional to experience level (player, not character). Together, the GM and players will learn the game they are trying to play. This is indicative of a different facet that wasn't attributed to me. I may have had some natural understanding based on my acting/improv background but that wasn't it. New groups, players, GMs are best suited to simpler systems. Systems that generally avoid heavy math and complex rules are best. For this I have two major recommendations: D&D 5th Edition, or Dungeon World. Some GMs say that 4th Edition is easy to run and I would agree, but I will save that argument for another time.

For those of you that don't know Dungeon World, it is a Powered by the Apocalypse system, which long story short, uses 2d6 for standard roles in place of a d20. Checks are made with three degrees of success: Failure, Partial success/ success with a compromise, and total success, all augmented by ability scores that work similar to the d20 system. This system takes the narrative or fiction of the game and makes it the driving mechanic. In fact, I have run the same 5 minute demo for people that Starhelm ran for me, and it has gotten the point across every time. Most people who have tried the Starhelm Trial, as I like to call it, usually feel much more confident about trying tabletop gaming. The secret behind this is it boils down to abstraction, which I will also get to in a later article. Essentially, abstraction is the process in which the dice roll, and the action it represents feel farther apart. Example:

Faranir, Vagabond Prince of the Wood Elves, is in a sparring match against Dagna, Dwarven Champion of Morgrath. Dagna uses a huge shield making Faranir's thrown weapons much less effective. So Faranir, being the scoundrel he is, gets an idea. He charges Dagna and full on flying drop kicks Dagna, using that shield's mass against the dwarf to knock him over. Well, as a GM how do we resolve this, is it an attack? Is it an ability check? Do we roll one roll for each leg that hits, considering what the terrain is and the weight difference between these two fighters? Is it a trip? A bull rush? Does it do damage? Are Dagna's parents proud? Why doesn't Faranir just throw Falcon at Dagna instead?  Let me stop you right there. We'll resolve this in Dungeon World first:

Faranir rolls 2d6 adding his strength modifier, and he rolls a 10. Success, Dagna falls back. Faranir also hits the ground, and immediately kips up to make a follow up attack. Done.

And in 5e:

Faranir rolls a Strength (Athletics) check contested by Dagna's Strength (Athletics). As he hits the ground, he uses his Athletics feat to use 5 feet of movement and stand up, and he gets ready for another attack.

Simple. That is what makes an amazing first game. Simple rolls, simple decisions. If you keep your game simple as you start, you can slowly build momentum into more complexity. Tomorrow we'll talk more about choosing a system, and I promise it won't be what it seems. So with this simple answer think it over, and tell me what you make of it. As the week progresses, I'll start to give my two cents about how complexity can work in.

For now, enjoy this magic item:

Orb of Confounding Simplicity
Uncommon
This silver, metallic orb weighs no more than a pound hovers gently 5 feet above the surface below it as long as it is at rest and not held by a creature or put into a container. In all other respects it acts as a normal ball of its size and material.

Duelist 2nd Draft, Now with Arcane Blade!

Today I have included the second draft for the duelist, which now has the Arcane Blade duelist archetype which is based on the old 3.5 Arcane Duelist. I have expanded the abilities of the archetypes, as my original design was to be mechanically liken unto a spellcaster's ability to drop effects while still having the ability to actually participate in combat. Let me know what you think!

Seriously, Guys: Alchemist

Make Things Happen with the Alchemist (Bad puns engaged!)

In a previous article, I mentioned Rich Howard's Alchemist class and that you should try it, but I wanted to further expand on that explanation, and let you guys know as of right now, it is on sale for $2.77. I did, in fact, take the time to review it because it is entirely worth it, like better than my content! (Probably shouldn't admit that) I know a lot of my readers are both players and GMs and I would hope you guys notice what I have about this class. To give you a break down, the class is an Intelligence-based, prepared, casting class with a focus on crafting with the following archetypes: Artificer, Herbwarden, Irezumi (Magical Tattoo Artist), Metamorph (Think Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde), Poisoner, Pyromancer, and Reanimator. Each alchemist shares the same spell list for cantrips-5th level, with each archetype getting bonus spells as well as dictating what 6th-9th level spells the alchemist will learn. As expected, you can craft one shot items that are imbued with spells and hand them out, so you can become the party's main utility guy as well as being a dependable caster. In the supplement itself, you are given guides as how to illustrate your casting. For instance, my poisoner Vindalas, tends to derive all of his spells from various natural poisons and imbue them with magic. So, when he wants to cast sleep, he throws a vial or pouch that has a vaporizing agent mixed with a potent poison derived sedative that has been magically enhanced. This creates an awesome effect of further fleshing out your character.

I have at this point played the Artificer, Irezumi, and Poisoner archetypes, all at varying levels which all independently feel different from one another. I have to say this class feels so much like full official 5e content, it is hard to ignore. The class makes fantastic use of existing mechanics and applies it forward in a very fun way. The use of flavor in the creation of your spells as an alchemist gives so much volume to your own personal story, as well as the flavor of the world. In doing so, the use of this class helps negotiate the meaning of the alchemist in the story as well as adding pieces of lore and material the DM may have not thought about, without risking violating the overall setting. Using the poisoner archetype again as an example, it actually uses basic poisons, and makes them fun and interesting. Statistically, I have not, since I started playing and DMing for 5e, seen the use of basic posions by players or have begun to see them take interest in doing so. On top of that, the available options do not interfere with a strict inclusion of magitech/magitek. An alchemist could via most of these archetypes, if not all, appear in any setting, from grimdark Sword and Sorcery style fantasy to high fantasy settings like the Forgotten Realms. That in itself is a testament in Mr. Howard's ability to find design space that exists in the system, work on it, make it fun to play, and make it universal. When I saw the Unearthed Arcana: Artificer, I tried it for two sessions and said, "No, I think I'll take the better one." and went back to this class. This is a must have for any DM or player who wants a crafting oriented class, and is looking for something balanced and unique.

I really can't recommend this enough, you can find the link to get your PDF copy of it here.

If you like Rich Howard's work, you can find more of it at Tribality and if you want to stay updated with the man himself, you can find him on Twitter.

Elsewhere in the Mage College

In other news, for those of you who haven't seen and would like to see some of my work get out there, the Duelist first draft is up for your review and feedback with a working changelog going with more being added, changed, and fixed daily. You can find the article concerning the first draft where you can comment on it, etc, here while you can get the draft in PDF form here.

Happy dueling, Arcanists!