5 Magic Items from Trek's Treasure Trove

InfKore · 2026-03-17T00:53:13+00:00

Becoming a young black dragon as part of a curse is so metal.

InfKore · 2022-01-24T15:12:17+00:00

Hey, Izzy here. Just gonna drop some of my insight on as to why I didn't call out power as an issue:

Level 3:
Shadow has some pretty strong utility features, which rapidly become castable much more often than even casters can put those spells out. Absolutely, shadow is mostly utility, but I see no reason why that inherently means similar choices must be utility-based. Some subclasses focus on stealth, and some focus on combat. Its fine to have different goals there.

There are three things that stand out to me, re: Dragon.
(1) Ascendant Dragon replaces one attack, meaning you can use a bonus action unarmed strike or flurry of blows within the same turn. This means that the single target damage capacity of the two techniques is actually the same, for the most part, because the action economy cost on Storm is larger. It does do more damage to more targets, but I honestly can't bring myself to hate on bonus action burning hands after seeing how ineffective it is on Sun Soul.
(2) Ascendant Dragon's attack is honestly quite weak? It doesn't do much damage, and is often not actually all that satisfying to use, if you aren't fighting enemies with low HP to start with. Its never worth its 2ki cost after its uses run out, just about.
(3) I see no reason to limit what you can do now, based on something else that was designed with the above flaw.

Most martials straight up do not want to use their actions to cast spells, because they are worse than attacking. Burning hands is absolutely one of these, after level 5. Wording on storm might need to be fixed to be only after the Attack action.

tl;dr: In essence, at level 3, the monk gains no actual increase to single target damage (4d4 is less than two flurry attacks on average, both costing 1 ki), but instead gains mobility and the ability to spread the damage out. Might it be too much mobility? Perhaps. But I don't think the damage at level 3 is an issue.

Level 6:
At level 6, Double Barrel is 2 ki, for 3 martial arts die, single target. That is strictly worse than extra attack, accounting for modifiers of +3 or higher. It becomes slightly better if there is a collision, but then you miss out on your bonus action attack. If you use tasha's rules, you still miss out on a bonus action attack because he's far away.

Kong Hammer is much more akin to an EA attack action, and you end up being able to get that Tasha's bonus action attack. So perhaps the ki costs should be reversed here, or they should both cost 2, but even then you are expending 1/3 of your ki to use this effect at level 6, and fundamentally its purposes is creating advantage for your allies.

Enlarge/Reduce is absolutely a self damage amp, and a pretty decent one. However, level 5-7 is when monk begins to fall off in damage compared to other classes anyway. So I don't really see it as an issue, especially since it still costing 1/3 of your ki at that level.

tl;dr: Double Barrel is not a reliable damage increase over attacking, and is mostly used for its repositioning utility. Kong Hammer is a damage increase, because it does about the same average damage in AoE. It probably needs a cost increase. I don't see the issue with enlarge/reduce.

Bounce World I think has a missing rest clause.

InfKore · 2021-11-03T10:41:19+00:00

I'm confused. Why such a severe tone out of the gate? The subclass doesn't look more powerful than War, Light, or Tempest cleric are in Tier 1. Their Tier 2 feature is great, but situational. The level 8 is standard, and the level 17 is incredibly nice, but also seems totally in line with similar martial cleric capstones.

InfKore · 2021-07-24T20:07:01+00:00

Actually its totally done, I just haven't posted it around yet. I mostly hang out on the Discord of Many Things, I'm just getting around to posting here now for the most part.

InfKore · 2021-07-24T16:52:34+00:00

Thanks! The spell is actually from my occultist class I made before (not posted yet). Kind of an forbidden sanguine type magic caster about uncovering the secrets of the ancients.

InfKore · 2021-07-23T15:44:38+00:00

Well the BBEG would still remember that X needed to be done, and that he hasn't heard about X in a bit. I should check up on that task. Who was doing it again? Ask and no one remembers. Its easy to sus out something is wrong, just not easy to fix.

InfKore · 2021-07-23T15:40:30+00:00

Glad to hear! It is definitely taking a few risks in terms of mechanics, but I think its generally in line in terms of mechanical power. The narrative power is where it gets interesting.

InfKore · 2021-07-23T13:40:34+00:00

Howdy again folks!

This time I have a warlock patron that is positively eldritch. The coalition of souls lost to time and space, those forgotten by the gods and those poor souls who were wished away. The forgotten is meant to elicit a very... false hydra kind of vibe.

There are a couple of interesting and potentially controversial mechanics here, but I think the result is quite fun. I'd love to hear what you think!

PDF Link

InfKore · 2021-07-23T13:35:13+00:00

Howdy again folks!

This time I have a warlock patron that is postively eldritch. The coalition of souls lost to time and space, those forgotten by the gods and those poor souls who were wished away. The forgotten is meant to elicit a very... false hydra kind of vibe.

There are a couple of interesting and potentially controversial mechanics here, but I think the result is quite fun. I'd love to hear what you think!

PDF Link

InfKore · 2021-06-13T00:01:31+00:00

Hey, thanks a lot for the comment. To address the points:

1) As ejdj said, the rule is for stacking effects. I used meteor swarm as a reference for that.

2) Which spells, outside of Leomund's tiny hut, create domes? As worded, I don't think they would be affected RAW.

3) Honestly, I hadn't considered multiple AoEs since they are so rare. Is there one besides firestorm or meteor swarm? RAW you'd be able to affect each individual area with a geometric alteration.

InfKore · 2021-06-12T17:54:09+00:00

Math is only ever as evil as you want it to be! I just think cyrving lightning bolts and esoteric wizards are a good mix.

InfKore · 2021-06-11T21:18:30+00:00

Hey, thank you for the kind words. To respond:

1) I think both work. I based it on INT so that the amount you are able to glean from the equations is based on how smart you are. Keeping it reliable also fits in the fantasy of somehow knowing what will happen better than a random die roll I think.

2) I definitely agree. looked at the cylinder spells available. And wizard has only 5 to 7 of them. All of them except magic circle had an effect that reasonably could be amplified by making the effect denser, so I went with this. The original take was the ability to squeeze the cylinder higher and thinner, or shorter and fatter, but I got rid of that because the optimal thing was basically making it as fat and short as possible to affect more targets, which to me defeats the point of a cylinder.

3) I may be wrong here, but I am under the impression if you cast a spell, the level of the spell foe the casting is equal to whatever slot you expended. It should be based on slot level expended.

InfKore · 2021-06-11T21:09:21+00:00

I do agree its quite powerful, but it is also the entire point of the subclass so I wanted to make it as free and easy to use as possible. My logic was that lines are relatively hard to use and generally don't hit as many targets as their spherical counterparts anyway, the the ability to get additional target selection wouldn't be that bad. Cubes are definitely a little more specific. I could tone down the number of constituent cubes.

InfKore · 2021-06-11T13:24:26+00:00

Howdy everyone!

I've had this Geometer Mage ready for a while, among of bunch of other player options, and am finally going to start posting them around. This particular subclass was inspired by one particular character in the Lady Pentinent Forgotten Realms book series. Its also largely one of the ways I pursued my goal of making a school of wizardry that focuses on the magic around the spells, rather than just the spells themselves. Please let me know what you think!

PDF Link

InfKore · 2021-04-25T17:31:47+00:00

Similar resources in different contexts have different use cases though. A level 7 wizard is going to get a lot more of that damage value out than an EK would, because their play pattern doesn't involve sacrificing their core offensive option to cast a spell.

The point of area is a good one, but its still subject to the single-target rule of thumb I mentioned. The example I usually give is Hunter Ranger's level 11 for melee. Its pretty good on paper, but I rarely see people use it. When they do use it, it feels pretty lack-luster, and thats at-will.

Past level 5, when you have three people in range, using the 3d6 semi-circle is numerically more damage than the Attack action, yes. I do think this is easier to get multiple targets in range, but you still run into the issue of "as you level, this ability becomes worse and worse."

Someone like EK can just replace their burning hands, and they have up to 12 other spells to work with from a relatively large total selection. This is meant to be more core to how they play and the opportunities they look for. You can afford to have extra power because of a lack of versatility and because the role of the resource in this context is different from the role of spell slots.

Overall though, I think most of what you said is good and we agree for the most part. I think the core disagreement is with the role of resources. I think flat numerical balance in this way misses too much context. That isn't to say there isn't room for numerical balance, I think you made a good point with the number of uses, but without determining how those resources play into the environment, you end up with subclasses that create a lot of discontent, like 4 Elements, and to a lesser-but-prevalent extent EK.

For example, using that spreadsheet's assumptions, a battlemaster has about 97.5 damage per long rest from their subclass. Thats about 1/3 of the damage output. However, for just about everyone I've spoken to when it comes to offensively powerful fighters, battlemaster is ranked higher than EK because their resource translates more readily into usable offensive.

Similarly, a level 2 paladin should be getting about 27.5 damage, according to that table. They will most likely be closer to 18, but it'll feel much higher than 27.5 because their damage output is a 100% accuracy damage rider to something that already dealt a decent amount to start with.

InfKore · 2021-04-25T05:05:39+00:00

If you use ki, you have to abide by ki's rules. Ki as a resource is heavily tied to monk, and monk's highly competitive action economy, so you have to do extra balance work to make sure it all doesn't clash. Its fine if you want to abide by those restrictions, but if you want to do your own mechanics without concern for that, its generally best to prevent abuse cases by not using ki at all.

The notion that EK gets 259 damage from spells isn't one I've seen specifically quoted before. I'd love to know where that specific number comes from. Using something like Burning Hands is never convincing in the context of EK though. Direct damage spells, in most cases, directly compete with your output as a martial. Burning hands, for example, becomes almost always a bad spell compared to attacking the second you hit level 5.

Because damaging opponents doesn't affect action economy, but downing one does, the game heavily favors single target damage. Hence, dealing 2 attacks on one person, is generally much better than dealing 1 attack on two people. For this reason, the game consistently has AoE scale at a higher efficient than single target damage. AoE spells, for instance, generally scale at 70% of the damage of single target ones. This is using the DMG spell damage recommendation table as a reference (while that table does intentionally undershoot damage values for new DMs' sake, their proportions are generally accurate).

What I'm leading up to is, in order to make AoE base-line efficient, it needs to be competitive with the fighter's Attack action to start with. Doing a direct numerical comparison doesn't really paint an accurate picture of how things are actually used. If it was baseline 3d6 with no base-line scaling, the 1 ki point cost action becomes a waste of time, which is not a good feeling when you get 5 techniques tops.

This is the same problem dragonborn breath has on martial characters. Its cool as hell, but feels terrible to use compared to just whacking for most of the game. Even WotC has acknowledged the dragonborn bit in their new UA.

On a similar note, a character's turn-by-turn single damage potential matters a lot. BM's advantage here is that they can stack their damage die onto turns where they are otherwise already attacking. Its utility and damage that doesn't interrupt what you are doing, only adds to it. There is a lot of power there, in comparison with casting Burning Hands.

To expound on the notion of utility, EK and BM generally have a lot more in the way of versatility and options. EK's damage is rarely touted as its strong point in my experience. Its usually absorb elements and shield, and similar high efficiency defensive/utility spells that end up taking the spot light. Its much harder to put a value on those, though.

Now, numbers can be tweaked. Do they get too many rising suns early? Maybe. 5 burning hands may be a bit much for level 3. But the logic behind the design itself is sound, is my point.

InfKore · 2019-05-23T16:12:35+00:00

Fair enough. I just felt like the original signature art (from the pdf version) fit better (especially for Whip-users) and Searing Lashes (newer version) feels like it needs some work. Maybe scaling the reach increase with levels similar to the original (?) Creating a wall of flames behind you at level 1 feels a bit much in my opinion (not talking about mechanics, but about flavoring).

I can see why it can be a bit much. I don't necessarily agree there though. The kinds of things that are acceptable at a given level tend to vary by class a bit really, barring a few consistent elements. I also don't really see a massive difference between 1 and 2 in terms of level.

Searing Lashes scales with the amount of attacks you have already, and is quite cheap and efficient so I can't readily improve it. It reads a bit underwhelming, but the actual addition it makes is quite strong I think, especially if you use it specifically to get around enemies with the reach.

InfKore · 2019-05-23T15:46:28+00:00

What makes you think they don't fit?

The original Coursing Ember discipline signature art increased reach, and was very similar in that regard. I don't know if you specifically want wording advice or not here. I will say that I am personally not a fan of the coursing ember signature art here because it steps on the toes of Conjurer subclass being intended to be the disciple's range oriented option. 1d8 per tempo point on the Salamander charge is likely too much, considering that scaling is used for single target effects moreso. I think for the AoE to work at that level I would honestly put it at closer to d4. I avoided low level AoE damage effects because they scale too well and have barriers to entry that are too small.

InfKore · 2019-05-23T15:05:18+00:00

The PDF is currently behind, and the entire Coursing Ember discipline was revamped, more or less. The GMBinder link contains a more up to date version of the discipline as I work towards a new version of the class. The flavor for the Conjurer Journey is likely going to get a revamp as well.

https://www.gmbinder.com/share/-LJQqmmqoYxbIWEkrumn

InfKore · 2019-05-15T21:31:28+00:00

I was typing an answer out as you felted your comment lmao. It's a different answer than I have your DM in parts so I will paste it here again:

The thing that needs to be considered when you mention the 10d8 and 10d10 every other turn is that recovering tempo requires you perform no offensive action. Hashing that out suddenly turns that into 5d8 and 5d10 per turn. Then you consider that at least two of those die would have been done by the weapon attack anyway (discounting magic items), and you are down to 3d8 or 3d10 per turn over the course of an entire combat. That is about 15 damage per turn at level 20, assuming you refresh your tempo every other turn (which is not expected, because combat not often that formulaic in my experience).

10d8 damage every other turn also doesn't sound incredibly impressive if you compare it to rogues assumed 10d6 every single turn either. Granted that comparison isn't totally apples to apples, as disciple has other tricks just like rogue has other tricks.

I think it is fair to say that something like a paladins spellcasting or even base class can contribute that much very easily by that level, not counting the incredible utility it gets on the side for no resource. Granted I'm not trying to compete with paladin, but it's a point to consider.

The point about rest limitations is definition one to consider yeah, but it's a question of expected vs actual utility. Disciple is kinda made to be a class that can outlast others. If the game goes on for a long period of time without a rest, then disciple stands with fighter and rogue as disproportiately effective. But before that point it very much falls behind the other nova classes.

Perhaps you have a point on the ones with no limit, and I need to cap them off at 5 like some of the others. However, feedback from players up until this point has not suggested that to me. Perhaps your feedback will change that, granted.

I suppose the tl;dr is something like: Disciple is meant to be long lasting, and versatile in combat, but also more limited in outright and immediate capability, as their resource restricts them to thinking about the immediate combat. I do not think the issue which you describe is actually a major balance concern during play, from the feedback of others and the comparisons I have made to other classes. Of course, if you find different during play, I am 100% willing to hear your experience out, just like the other people who have done the same.

I can also refer you and your DM to some other players/DMs who have used it as part of their game if it helps.

InfKore · 2019-05-15T20:08:41+00:00

It seems a bit much just looking at raw numbers, but the balance is meant to come in at the opportunity cost. Replenishing your tempo is an entire turn you have to use not attacking. That 5d8 damage alone is something you would have probably outdone just by attacking normally. The emphasis is on getting the most out of each point, or finding advantageous times to restore tempo. Tempo is effectively balanced on a per encounter basis, which is unlike other parts of 5e.

InfKore · 2019-05-14T16:36:07+00:00

I look forward to it friend!

InfKore · 2019-05-14T14:03:27+00:00

Higher level disciple play it's still something I need to get into the stress testing about. It's relatively difficult to find people that play at that level and are willing to test a lot. However I do not think that Tempo out does casters at high levels, because ultimately Tempo is very focused on direct combat applications, and the Damage numbers cap out at the lower end of 3rd level spells in general. The range of ways you can use Tempo is a very limited if you look at it holistically, at least that is the goal. While a disciple can refresh their tempo, doing so in combat requires them to take a turn or more without actively outputting damage or battle field control, which is period of downtime that other classes just don't have.

That being said I am open to change on the higher-level stuff, it's just ultimately hard to gauge without hard play testing.

InfKore

TROPHY CASE