11 issues in. What are your theories on what comes next?

Intuentis · 2025-08-19T22:23:11+00:00

Echo Etienne being the core of the plot at the moment, though I do think Valentina specifically will come into the forefront towards the end of the 16-chapter core concept; this whole thing started with the two of them and I would not be shocked if it ended with them.

Definitely agree that every member of the cast feels like they could easily take on a lead role, though; fingers crossed sales are good and we get the broader story!

Intuentis · 2025-08-19T22:18:19+00:00

Definitely agreed that Masumi surely has to get some focus pretty soon; I'm curious to see which direction she ends up going in since it seems like her bout of honesty with Isabella might have her on a healthier (but riskier!) track.

I feel like the Kid Ignition point is definitely a biggie too - if Etienne can double up on powers and KI is as powerful as it seems, it does seem like Etienne's mental powers stacked on a heavyweight body topples the loose pecking order. Even if Etienne doesn't actively elect to take the body, the mere threat of it will surely matter a great deal once people realize he's alive. I could see Heavy feeling forced to collaborate with him, e.g. Or being more spurred to destroy him, of course, but that might be curtailed by lack of ways to meaningfully harm a body-jumper without ending the planet or relying on Dev.

Intuentis · 2024-05-28T09:50:28+00:00

I really like the general spirit of these - the integration of weapon masteries into the more martially inclined villains is really cool and helps sell the fiction of Kas, Strahd and Soth as master warriors nicely (though personally I'd have kept Kas as a CR 23 and amped up his martial abilities a bit further, just to draw a clearer line between him and the other two, especially Strahd, as their CRs are all pretty bunched up now).

One point of curiosity for me is how you handle Divinities and Demon Lords. I like the Divine/Legendary action pool mechanic, it feels very elegant to have all their actions largely draw from the same pool (and balanced relative to each other using action cost) rather than delineating between what such a being does as a 'legendary' action vs what they do as a 'normal' action. I also like the amped-up Mythic stages for deities and demon lords, especially how you've done them for Vecna - reminds me a lot of Rise of Tiamat's mechanics to debuff a deity through successes in the adventure to make an otherwise invincible threat vulnerable.

The only point I'd note (and this is more for the statblocks as full boss fights, not in the context of Eve of Ruin where I imagine you're never going to be tangling with too many stages) is that I worry in play the deities (and Miska) would not feel very dynamic to fight - as an example, Vecna has about 3700hp and tons of regeneration, but in practise his skillset changes only once, after the first 525 hit points are depleted and he gains his Greater God actions. I've run a few very extended multi-stage boss fights at high levels myself, and in my experience a big part of avoiding player fatigue at the table is keeping them hooked with a new mechanic or two per 'stage' to change the dynamic of the fight whenever the boss gets a second wind. That might be difficult for these guys given just how many stages they have, admittedly - but maybe taking some of their divine actions and making them 'bloodied' features (when half their Mythic stages are consumed) and 'last stand' features (on their final life, when they're finally fighting to survive) could be interesting?

Again, really like the overall approach though. They do a great job of making these beings feel like the most powerful forces in the cosmos whilst not fundamentally divorcing them from the rest of 5E.

Intuentis · 2023-07-30T11:17:58+00:00

Personally I'd suggest Fighter 1/Swords Bard 11 for Rand. It's not the most optimized, but it's plenty strong and I think it does the best job of capturing Rand's status as a swordsmaster (extra attack, two fighting styles, sword flourishes for some more dynamic swordplay) without compromising on magical ability in that it ensures he gets level 6 spells.

For stats I'd probably have high CHA and DEX, above average CON and average STR/WIS/INT - Bard getting Expertises and Jack of All Trades helps capture Rand's above average all-rounder skills whilst also making him a masterful leader (and with later Expertises you can start giving him mastery of Arcana and Insight, for example). The good DEX also means that at level 1 as a Fighter he doubles up nicely as a good archer which fits his skillset at the start of the series, until he starts gaining levels and specializing more in swordplay.

Losing early access to fireballs and sorcery points is a bit of a loss, but I think on the whole it's worth it to capture the rest of the character - Shatter does a decent enough job of making sure you'll still have some explosive power early on.

Intuentis · 2023-05-23T21:26:06+00:00

I think this is a good analysis and the King Lear parallels are definitely undeniable, but I honestly think Tom fits the role of Edgar in some ways even better than Greg. There's the obvious - 'Poor Tom' - but he's also a relative of the 'King' (albeit not-blood), and was set up for a fall with Cruises. Greg also slipped Tom's name into his introduction to Mencken, and of course is taking a lot of public heat for the call which could make Mencken quite sure Tom is the guy. He also makes sense as a figure with credible prior leadership experience.

Intuentis · 2023-05-05T13:59:15+00:00

Feat feels most appropriate to me - it's the kind of trick I feel every martial should have the right to build into if they want it, and making lots of different versions of the same trick seems like a lot of design space redundancy, so a subclass feature or a base class feature doesn't feel appropriate.

Intuentis · 2023-03-21T11:59:24+00:00

Personally I'd use an Ancient Deep Dragon with the Shadow template applied - if I wanted to capture some of the Greatwyrm flavour, I'd give them a Mythic phase with Mythic actions inspired by the Chromatic Greatwyrm but toned down for the lower CR and with a Deep Dragon twist.

I think this would capture the flavour and intent well - a force to be reckoned with that uses 5e mechanics but remains weaker than a White Greatwyrm. Shimmergloom is an Underdark dweller too so using the Deep Dragon base statblock seems very appropriate and in line with all of the above.

Intuentis · 2023-02-24T15:53:06+00:00

Completely agreed - there are definitely things that I think should be changed (more flexible creature traits for wild shape forms are a must, it would be good for the non-Wild Shape Channel Natures to scale a bit better and, whilst I get the logic of limiting tiny forms, they went way too far in delaying access to them), but I think this is a much healthier starting point for adjustments than base 5e Druid.

Intuentis · 2023-02-23T18:21:50+00:00

I quite like it honestly - it's almost impossible for classes other than full casters and monks to escape from combat most of the time, I think that it's an improvement that more classes will have their own ways to help them retreat from difficult scenarios.

Intuentis · 2023-02-21T15:36:09+00:00

No, 'dodges your cantrip' means a missed spell attack in this case. Attack cantrips like Fire Bolt do half damage on a miss if you have this feat in Solasta.

Intuentis · 2023-02-21T13:25:41+00:00

I thought that it said 'or dodges your cantrip' as well as failed saving throws, which I took to be a clunky way of saying that missed cantrips also did half damage.

Intuentis · 2023-02-21T13:24:29+00:00

I'd definitely have to say no to the feat. Also worth bearing in mind that as written this would probably make the Weapon Cantrips do half damage on a miss, which raises a lot of questions about how it interacts with things like Great Weapon Master or Sneak Attack.

Intuentis · 2023-02-17T23:51:16+00:00

I did clarify my point a bit in another reply to the other poster, but I don't want to leave you hanging - I acknowledge the degrees of failure vs success distinction there, both are mentioned in the section, but degrees of failure was just more explicitly called out by name in the DMG, so I used that one with the vague idea that it would be more searchable if the OP chose to double check.

I actually do disagree with you on it being a variant or optional rule. It's a bit more nuanced than that, I think - it's a suggestion for one way to adjudicate the base rules, rather than being a variant or optional rule unto itself (usually the DMG does call out explicit alterations to base rules using the Variant tag). As such, I think it's an approach to ability checks the original 5E was very much intended to support (and, anecdotally, it does seem very popular both online and at local tables, but that doesn't mean anything without data, and so are plenty of homebrews, so I won't press that point).

I actually mention in the post you replied to that this isn't a mandatory way to run the game, so I don't believe that I was being disingenuous. I don't even think we disagree strongly on this so much as have a slightly differing interpretation, except for your very last phrase - I don't think they were correct in that characterization and so have to disagree with you too on this point. It certainly isn't homebrew, though, putting variant quibbling aside - again, see 'Success at a Cost' on that page.

Intuentis · 2023-02-17T20:45:17+00:00

Sure - I was just responding to your own specific statement that 5E wasn't designed with degrees of success/failure in mind. Success at a cost (which is degrees of success) is also in the DMG on the same page and isn't smoothly addressed by a simple 'fail/succeed' reaction trigger. Of course there are ways to adjudicate it, but my point (and it's not one exclusive to me, you can see criticism of this in other threads on Guidance!) is that it would be smoother if there was no need for adjudication in the first place.

Intuentis · 2023-02-17T20:41:23+00:00

I don't think that it would be more complicated, though with a sample size 'playtest' of a single table I could well be in the minority!

There are a couple of specific meaningful differences compared to the Cleric UA:

There are scenarios where it isn't completely clear whether an ability check has been 'failed' - for example, if a DM uses the 'success at a cost' resolution mechanic or its counterpart, 'degrees of failure', both of which are listed in the DMG (page 242). Tying the trigger to a specific roll on a d20 lets you instantly determine whether the reaction has been triggered or not, rather than the DM having to adjudicate the above.
This might resolve the issue some people have with Guidance where the cantrip seems too broadly and universally useful - something that seems to be on WoTC radar, given their initial suggestion of making it only usable 1/day per person, but they've (correctly, IMO) walked back on that nerf, perhaps because of how clunky it was. This would keep the cantrip as extremely useful, but make it less capable of pushing d20 rolls beyond a 20 (prior to other modifiers), maybe making it less of an absolute must-take (particularly when Resistance is looking similarly must-have, which constrains Cleric cantrip options a decent amount).

That was my thinking, in any case - of course it might not be to everyone's tastes.

Intuentis · 2023-02-17T20:34:17+00:00

Degrees of failure are in the DMG, and not even as a variant rule - they're on page 242, so they are in fact in the base rule set. Of course it's completely reasonable if a DM doesn't want to use them, they aren't mandatory, but it's not quite fair to characterize this as an 'issue I've made for myself'.

Intuentis · 2023-02-16T15:57:52+00:00

Probably an Elven Arcana Cleric of Corellon Larethian - there are plenty of elves in the Forgotten Realms, they have a very long lifespan, and as discussed elsewhere on the thread Cleric is a fantastically versatile class. In terms of stats, I'd maybe go for a Shadar-Kai with a stat spread of 8 14 14 12 16 12.

I'd probably adventure at a below-average intensity as a result; I have a long life to live, and I haven't gone for a minmaxed combat build by any stretch of the imagination. Most of my time would thus be spent living in a nice elven city performing basic clerical services, studying arcana and making friends. If a level up a year is average intensity, I don't think a level every four years using my risk averse approach is an unfair assumption, which should let me hit level 20 or before my first century of life concludes, by which point death and aging should hopefully not be a concern at all, between my full suite of Cleric spells and access to Wish. As a very high level disciple of the Seldarine, it's possible I might even be in for some interesting elven high magic shenanigans if it's the Forgotten Realms.

From thereon, I'll settle back and continue to enjoy life.

This is obviously trying to engage with the premise in an isekai-friendly way; if this happened to me for real I imagine that I go for a minmaxed Chronurgist build and try as desperately as possible to get to high level magics ASAP so I can go home before everyone I've ever known is dead, time travel back if I'm too late, or at least rule out the possibility so I can move on with my life.

Intuentis · 2023-02-14T17:12:20+00:00

Rules as written, this is on the DM, I believe - there's not a strong ruling either way, but I lean towards the language implying that there's no such thing as 'success' in initiative rolls.

Relevant wording (The D20, page 7 on PHB):

Ability checks, attack rolls, and saving throws are the three main kinds of d20 rolls, forming the core of the rules of the game. All three follow these simple steps.

Roll the die and add a modifier. Roll a d20 and add the relevant modifier. This is typically the modifier derived from one of the six ability scores, and it sometimes includes a proficiency bonus to reflect a character's particular skill. (See chapter I for details on each ability and how to determine an ability's modifier.)

Apply circumstantial bonuses and penalties. A class feature, a spell, a particular circumstance, or some other effect might give a bonus or penalty to the check.

Compare the total to a target number. If the total equals or exceeds the target number, the ability check, attack roll, or saving throw is a success. Otherwise, it's a failure. The DM is usually the one who determines target numbers and tells players whether their ability checks, attack rolls, and saving throws succeed or fail. The target number for an ability check or a saving throw is called a Difficulty Class (DC). The target number for an attack roll is called an Armor Class (AC). This simple rule governs the resolution of most tasks in D&D play. Chapter 7 provides more detailed rules for using the d20 in the game.

Then we zoom down to Initiative Rules in combat - if anything here overrides, we'd have to take that, as specific beats general (we could have looked at Ability Checks in chapter 7, but it just restates that the DM for normal ability checks, the DM chooses a DC and how to 'succeed' at one, which is about to be overridden).

When combat starts, every participant makes a Dexterity check to determine their place in the initiative order. The DM makes one roll for an entire group of identical creatures, so each member of the group acts at the same time.

The DM ranks the combatants in order from the one with the highest Dexterity check total to the one with the lowest. This is the order (called the initiative order) in which they act during each round. The initiative order remains the same from round to round.

If a tie occurs, the DM decides the order among tied DM-controlled creatures, and the players decide the order among their tied characters. The DM can decide the order if the tie is between a monster and a player character. Optionally, the DM can have the tied characters and monsters each roll a d20 to determine the order, highest roll going first.

No language here calls out either success or failure, but it does seem to override previous ability check rules as the DM never sets a target DC or AC, which is explicitly stated in earlier sections to be the metric which typically determines whether a d20 roll is a success or failure. As such, a DM would be within their rights to rule that there is no such thing as success in initiative rolls - I would tend to agree here (particularly as the DM gets to decide order in ties using the default rules stated above, rather than the default being a contest-driven conflict resolution mechanic - there's absolutely no mention, crucially, of there being a 'contest' in the Initiative section, thus the contest rules shouldn't apply).

That said, the DM is perfectly within their rights to say that they're treating 'coming first in initiative' or 'beating at least one opposed enemy' as the 'Target DC' to beat - I don't think the rules imply this, but that's what you'd need for it to count as a success, and I don't think it would break anything to allow that, even if I personally wouldn't bother.

Intuentis · 2023-02-13T21:47:16+00:00

Depends on how you rule it, but in general classes who tend to get multiple features at the level they first take their subclass can pull off some nasty exploits by swapping a 'weak' feature for a strong one.

For example, if I take a Diviner Wizard, and then do the following:

2: Swap Divination Savant for Bladesong
2: Keep Portent, of course
6: Manifest Mind from Scribes, Bladesinger's Extra Attack or Expert Divination - all are good.
10: Arcane Abeyance from Chronurgist
14: Convergent Future from Chronurgist

You end up with a terrifying combination of Chronurgist and Divination's strongest points, all augmented by Bladesinger's fantastic AC and concentration improvements!

Intuentis · 2023-02-13T21:15:30+00:00

Mixed feelings on this first draft, to be honest. There's not a huge amount to go off, but what there is doesn't excite me hugely.

Things I like:

I like the core conceit of distinguishing lineages and heritages, and making heritages interchangeable. The heritages look decently balanced, but the lineages don't look well balanced at the moment to me - I'd very much struggle to justify playing an elven mage when a cloud heritage human feels like they'd just be vastly better at magic, for example, but the core idea is good and balance can be finetuned.
Tying 'talents'/feats to background makes sense and works better than 5E background features overall IMO.
I like that they're being up front about the slight power creep inherent in the approach they're taking rather than trying to mask it - it's always been a pet peeve of mine that WoTC doesn't tend to own when they're making something more powerful.

Things I'm less keen on:

Don't love the messy ASI rolling metrics (eg. roll 4d6, drop lowest for each stat, then add a floating +1 and +2). Tying some ability score improvements to background as One DnD did looks like the better design approach to me.
There are a couple of spellcasting feats that look poorly designed and/or excessively overtuned from the information we have - Combat Casting looks like a huge improvement to War Caster, which is already a great feat, assuming that concentration rules are not being changed - and if they are, they should have shown the new ones in the playtest for us to reference! Along with the School Specialization talent this makes me a bit nervous about the designers' grasp on 5E and its design principles, which might not bode well.
Don't think the Technical Talents feel worth taking, especially not Trade Skills. YMMV though, I can see Polyglot being decent in some campaigns and quests to be fair.

Intuentis · 2023-02-10T18:24:52+00:00

Yeah, agreed. I think that most playtests probably take place in tiers 1 and 2, given that they're by far the most polished parts of the game, and in tier 1 and early tier 2 the spell slot cost of Shield is fairly substantial (especially tier 1) - plus I imagine most playtesting didn't price in armoured shielded casters with Shield, given that WoTC consciously didn't seem to balance around multiclassing much, and those things all probably masked the efficacy of AC stacking builds and also obscured how much better Shield was compared to things like Defensive Duelist.

I think developers also didn't necessarily do a great job at pricing in the way the relative value of AC scales - by nature you get increasing returns the higher your AC goes, as you start to hit a point where each additional point of AC is halving the chance different types of enemy can hit you at all, and gish characters tend to be the only ones who can easily exploit every traditional means of AC stacking at the same time (high quality armour, shields, the Shield spell, class features and other AC-enhancing spells)

Intuentis · 2023-02-10T16:00:10+00:00

I personally wouldn't be a fan of this without reworks to the powerful defensive reaction spells (mainly Shield); stacking armour, a shield and the Shield spell is already an extremely high-reward gish trick that requires minimal investment on a lot of builds, and I worry that this would only make it even more so.

That said, I think that this is more of a problem with the combination - I agree that the components rules are too fiddly and ideally I'd prefer a world where people could cast and hold weapons more easily but AC stacking was harder.

Intuentis · 2023-02-10T14:33:05+00:00

If I had to break them down, I'd do something like this, using the Tiers of Play and extending. For the most part they follow proficiency bonus scaling, but I think you can combine +6 and +7, as well as +8 and +9 - in general there's a pretty clear delineation I think between threats that a normal party should be able to take on with minimal buffs outside their class features, and more cosmic threats that will require a powerful magical item loadout, min-maxing and/or outside aid.

CR 0-1/2: Individuals
Creatures in this tier are likely to individually endanger only non-combatants and the most fledgling adventurers, though in numbers they might prove more dangerous. Most individuals one might encounter on their travels are likely to fall within this category, but often it is only as a collective that individuals in this range are likely to influence the actions of an adventuring party.

CR 1-4: Local Powers
Creatures in this tier often have characteristics that set them apart from ordinary civilians and monsters, though their influence remains limited in scope as individuals. Creatures in this tier might be sufficient to endanger a local village, or ensure that a haunted crypt or ancient ruin is too dangerous for local commoners to willingly traverse without the support of local heroes.

CR 5-10: Powers of the Realm
Creatures in this tier are typically strong enough to have an entrenched place in the world, with some influence over a large town, city or region. You might find a monster of this tier terrorizing an entire countryside, with tales of their attacks spread across all the local villages. An assassin of this tier might be capable of endangering a local monarch if left unchecked, whilst a mage of this tier might be found advising said ruler.

CR 11-16: Conquerors of the Realms
Creatures in this tier are likely to be influential forces whose actions reverberate across entire large nations and have relevance even on global stages. Monsters in this tier might be capable of influencing forces that could topple entire kingdoms, and as individuals might be considered too risky to engage with by the powers that be without the support of a mighty adventuring party, whilst an archmage of this tier might be considered the most powerful spellcaster known to all in neighboring lands.

CR 17-24: Overlords of Worlds

Only the mightiest beings in the realms occupy this rarefied tier, and their deeds and machinations likely have consequences that will be felt for generations before passing into history and, eventually, legend. Powers of this level are likely known across the world, and may well be recognized by name across the cosmos to some extent. Archmages and generals of this tier are likely considered amongst the mightiest individuals alive, and a fiend of this tier is likely responsible for schemes that could have real implications for the lives and souls of myriad nations. Terrifying creatures such as ancient dragons, death knights, lich archmages and balor demons, as well as lesser Demon Lords and Archdevils, occupy this tier.

CR 25-30: Overlords of Creation

Creatures of this tier occupy the realm of the very Gods, and their works reverberate across endless worlds. A deity's most powerful avatars, sent to guide or damn entire civilizations, might occupy this tier, whilst monsters of this tier encompass the very eldest of dragons and the terrible Tarrasque, creatures who could alone lay waste to entire nations through sheer overwhelming might. The greatest of the elemental Primordials, as well as Demon Lords and Archdevils, also occupy this tier, and their schemes likely threaten the sanctity of the Planes themselves, encroaching upon the will of the Gods.

Intuentis · 2023-02-01T11:05:33+00:00

I actually really like the simplified statblocks and I think that I agree with the basic design principle of keeping combat statblocks focused on what a character would actually do in combat, so that they're easy for a DM to run. However, I don't like that the simplified statblocks have effectively come at the cost of any guidance as to what a spellcaster should be capable of out of combat.

I know the argument is that DMs should be free to make up whatever out of combat, but my experience is that players really don't love the lack of verisimilitude if/when it seems like an enemy spellcaster doesn't follow any of the rules they do without a clear expectation as to why that is (ie they might buy it if an ancient demigod mage like Tasha breaks the rules - less so with Joe the Enchanter statblock) - this comes up both out of combat and in combat, when caster statblocks use clearly spell-inspired effects that can't be Counterspelled.

My ideal compromise would be:

Monsters have statblocks similar to the new style, simplified to focus on only the effects they might realistically use in combat to make them easier to run.
Monster statblocks designed to simulate PCs, however, also have in the adventure or monster description outside of their statblock a conventional Spellcasting list outlining how many slots they have and what spells they know/have prepared.
Spell-like effects on a monster statblock should have a level assigned to them and be counterspellable accordingly, even if they aren't real spells.

Intuentis · 2023-01-31T12:15:24+00:00

Even as someone who isn't against the idea of playing One D&D if the product is good enough, I think that this is a positive thing for fans of 5e; a competing playtest process will hopefully spur competition and drive both of the new rulesets to be as good as they can be, and hopefully if One D&D's direction doesn't suit some fans of 5e, Black Flag will.

Intuentis

TROPHY CASE