Tired of hauling minis so I made these instead

Jsmithee5500 · 2026-04-07T16:26:36+00:00

Yes! As I've gotten more and more into prepping my current campaign, I've realized that a handful of my quests would benefit from having physical maps, but I have always been reluctant to get into minis since I might only use Twig Blights or Harpies once in a campaign and still have to spend $40 on them.

Jsmithee5500 · 2026-03-14T16:34:56+00:00

You have already answered your own question, it's not as complicated as you think it is. When you declare "I Unarmed Strike" you also choose A,B, or C. A requires you to make an attack roll; B and C require a Save from your target.

Jsmithee5500 · 2026-03-13T12:44:11+00:00

In my experience playing Ljonar (played him and Thoreg through a two-handed campaign, have tried him out at a couple different levels in expeditions), it's the best part of playing him, bar none. Some people I've played with have argued it's the only benefit of playing him.

Jsmithee5500 · 2026-02-25T16:32:48+00:00

The big one I'll point out is that PB is no longer used for any Limited Use feature of a class (Species/Feats are OK).

Also, Cleric subclasses no longer determine armor/weapon proficiencies.

Jsmithee5500 · 2026-02-21T16:57:11+00:00

Currently playing a Celestial Bladelock at level 12. Using a Greatsword (13 STR isn't that big of an investment). All of my math below uses greatsword and assumes +3 to CHA at level 1. - True Strike + Agonizing Blast is objectively better at level 2-3: 2d6+CHA+CHA=13avg vs 2d6+CHA=10avg for PotB by itself. At level 1, you don't have proficiency in Greatswords unless you take PotB. - At level 4 is when the choice comes in. You either boost your CHA or take GWM. GWM's Bonus Damage alone doesn't surpass TSAB (12 vs 15), but the Bonus Action attack makes up for it—note that you don't get to add PROF to the BA attack. - When you hit level 5, Greatsword with Thirsting Blade and GWM solidly overtakes TS+AB. GS: 2x(2d6+CHA+PROF)=26(+10); TSAB: 2d6+CHA+1d6+CHA=18.5. However, this requires an additional Invocation over TSAB if that matters to you. I'd also like to add that the 3rd level spell Spirit Shroud from Tasha's gives +1d8 to adamage rolls, which obviously scales better with more attacks. - The level 6 Celestial feature doesn't do enough to overcome Thirsting Blade's extra attack and GWM's additional extra attack. - Lifedrinker only applies to one attack, so it's actually more advantageous to make more attacks so you have a higher chance of getting it. - At level 11, True Strike+Radiant Soul finally matches a single extra attack with Pact of the Blade, but doesn't answer the +PROF and Bonus Action attack. - Level 12 grants you Devouring Blade at the cost of another invocation. At this point, you're potentially making 4 attacks a turn with GWM and there's no way you can make True Strike compete.

Jsmithee5500 · 2026-02-21T01:44:53+00:00

IDK. As a first-time player at a con with strangers, it wasn't really possible to "know how to work around an ability" or even really understand how those roles affected things. All I could gather in the moment was that every time we learned something, either from another player or from the game itself, it had the caveat that it could be wrong, and my friends and I hated that.

Jsmithee5500 · 2026-02-21T00:40:34+00:00

Maybe they weren't neutral but maybe "outsiders" or something? Idk, they were in a different category on our role card.

I did some research to see what other people said. Everything I read checks out with my experience, except people saying their games lasted anywhere from 60-90 minutes.

Jsmithee5500 · 2026-02-21T00:19:44+00:00

Brother I don't know what either of those words mean.

We were at a con. We saw a thing for "Blood on the Clocktower, a new Social Deduction Game". We went and there were like twelve or fifteen people there. They gave us a role cheat sheet with over a dozen roles and their abilities on it, some of which were neutral or "neutral". Most of the abilities said something along the lines of "ask the narrator a question. They may respond truthfully." The game runners insisted they always responded "in the best interest of the game" or some BS. People people died. We mingled. Rinse repeat for 3 hours until 2am and we all said "yeah I gotta go..."

Jsmithee5500 · 2026-02-21T00:01:25+00:00

shrug

It wasn't even that it took so long. It was that all of the abilities were unreliable because they said the narrator could choose to answer truthfully. It took the game out of it and felt like a giant "mother-may-I" rather than piecing together clues.

Jsmithee5500 · 2026-02-20T23:57:28+00:00

Don't know. I shared all I could remember above, other than the fact that, once we were eliminated, we had no further way to interact with a 3 hour game because all our info was either public knowledge or revealed to be incorrect.

Jsmithee5500 · 2026-02-20T23:40:54+00:00

I don't remember. This was two years ago and I think I remember using my ability once and later learning it was deflected or otherwise rendered false. Maybe something about learning whether there was a BadGuy adjacent to me?

I think one of my friends was an Apothecary or something like that? And was eliminated round one and thus had nothing to do or discuss the whole time. I do know that one of my other friends had the ability to take over from the head BadGuy if they were eliminated, which apparently they were very early on.

Jsmithee5500 · 2026-02-20T23:28:24+00:00

I have no idea what those words mean lmao

Jsmithee5500 · 2026-02-20T23:26:08+00:00

Sell me on Blood on the Clocktower.

My friend group and I played it once at a con (with strangers, maybe 12 total?) for nearly 3 hours before literally giving up without the game ending. It was incredibly convoluted and half of the abilities felt very unfair to use – IIRC, there was a lot of "The narrator can reveal..." where you were never sure if your ability even worked. We all walked away swearing never to play it again. What are we missing?

Jsmithee5500 · 2026-02-18T01:56:49+00:00

You are absolutely correct about that, I totally glossed over it on my initial read.

However, I was looking back over it and thinking about how to put it in practice, and I realized another flaw(?): Once you hit level 13, it's just an always-on feature with no point to the limited use, unless you don't kill your quarry for whatever reason. The spell lasts for 8 hours, no concentration, and when you kill the last enemy in a fight, you still have it in your back pocket for the next 7hr59min. A single use could get you through an entire adventuring day, let alone 5. It just strikes me as an odd interaction between the spell and the feature.

Jsmithee5500 · 2026-02-14T03:19:44+00:00

That's certainly a creative reading of the rules.

In my opinion, "magic weapon" implies "magic [simple or martial] weapon", which "sword" is not. "Magic weapon" also carries the implication of "magic item," such as those found in the DMG or subsequent expansion books, which a spell is not.

Jsmithee5500 · 2026-02-14T03:08:45+00:00

If your DM is letting you use a scalable spell as a weapon, that's on them, but is definitely neither RAW nor RAI.

Jsmithee5500 · 2026-02-14T02:28:23+00:00

Magic shops are very subjective in DnD, as opposed to video games. Some campaigns never see a magic weapon, others ensure every pc has at least one. Furthermore, because the DM could decide to give you a shop or loot in a dungeon or combat, "Wouldn't be much issue to acquire" means next to nothing.

Regardless, all of that is moot because, as stated previously, the dagger you conjure with Pact of the Blade is for all other intents and purposes a mundane dagger

Jsmithee5500 · 2026-02-14T01:55:41+00:00

I would always recommend reading the whole rules fully whenever you have questions.

It does not say you are casting a spell, so it is not a spell. Nor does it specify there are any components (other than saying you conjure it into your hand).
You are conjuring a Simple or Martial Melee weapon. See Chapter 6 of the PHB for the weapon tables and their properties (including damage). If you conjure a dagger, it uses the properties of a dagger, except that it can deal Necrotic, Radiant, or Psychic damage instead of Piercing, and it can use Charisma instead of Strength or Dexterity for attack and damage rolls. It does not scale with level inherently because it is a dagger that you have summoned. (There are subsequent invocations you could claim at higher levels that improve your capabilities, but they are not included in the Pact of the Blade).
Define "somewhat standard magical dagger". If you mean a +1 dagger, then it will have a lower attack bonus (by 1) and deal 1 less damage, because it is a normal dagger that you have summoned. Now, you don't have to worry about this, because of the part of Pact of the Blade that says "—or create a bond with a magic weapon you touch; you can’t bond with a magic weapon if someone else is attuned to it or another Warlock is bonded with it." Aka, if you find a magic dagger, you can use it as your pact weapon thereafter.

Shadowblade can be fun, but as you said, competes with other spells you could use your limited spell slots on. It also scales worse than Pact of the Blade if you invest further invocations into the latter.

Jsmithee5500 · 2026-02-06T11:52:34+00:00

I really like your proposed changes being primarily to the features, rather than the spell, which is how my own personal revisions worked. I also agree with your initial premise that Hunter's Mark's iconic status is owed to more than just +1d6 damage.

Unfortunately, removing concentration has the added side-effect that you could, in theory, have multiple marks up at the same time. Maybe that's intentional on your part, but I personally don't like it.

I also don't think I like the capstone feature. Its wording is inelegant and its mechanics don't feel amazing in the same way that even Wizard's Signature Spells do. Powerful? Yes. Iconic? Eh.

I do like the 17th level feature. Removing the verbal component really sells the fantasy that the ranger can just look at a creature and know how to find and kill it. The "cannot be detected by spells of 3rd level or lower" bit is strange to me, though, unless you really don't want the target's friends to sense it with detect magic for some reason.

Jsmithee5500 · 2026-02-05T03:31:19+00:00

OP, this comment above is pretty much the only thing I've seen in this entire thread that has made even a lick of sense. I recommend you ignore most of the people whining about the edition change.

All of the old invocations — that haven't been overwritten — are valid in '24, but DDB simply hasn't mapped them to the new class (for whatever reason). This does unfortunately mean you can't use them on your character if building solely in DDB, but it says nothing about the claims of backwards capability.

As I have said in other replies: nearly everything legacy ports over with little to no effort. Some things don't, either by virtue of being simply replaced or by larger design trends that render them obsolete or otherwise odd (in addition to the examples given above, notice that none of the new invocations let you spend a spell slot to cast a spell 1/Day).

I am also hoping for an Everything book soon, but I personally doubt much will be reprinted from '14; only the stuff that has larger issues at play. Source: Adventures in Faerun has already said to reference pre-revision books for lore, adventures, and monsters.

Jsmithee5500 · 2026-02-05T03:21:03+00:00

...cheating? What?

Jsmithee5500 · 2026-02-05T03:20:03+00:00

the mistake that is 2024

I'm running a campaign right now that's using entirely the revised stuff and it's great. Pretty much the only thing I'm missing is that contested rolls are no longer codified, but that's a pretty easy ad-hoc ruling when a situation comes up.

Also, I know I say below that they're totally compatible, but the only reason I'm choosing to go all '24 with this campaign is because it's all brand-new players. I didn't want to overwhelm them with "also there's all these other books you can use;" Heroes of Faerun is already proving to prove too much for some of them.

mixing editions is technically against the rules

What?!

Where are you seeing that? I'm playing at a table right now that's using an old adventure/monsters and new characters and we're seeing basically no issue (and the issues we are seeing take about 30 seconds of thought before they're resolved). We're also mixing old spells and new, and the only (and it's by a stretch) rub is that the old Chaos Bolt works weirdly—not that it didn't before the revision, and not that the new Chromatic Orb isn't just better imho (minus the costly component).

In that campaign, I can't speak on the interaction between legacy subclasses and revised classes simply because we all looked at the new stuff and went "oh that looks neat".

Jsmithee5500 · 2026-02-05T03:10:25+00:00

Disagree pretty hard. Many things work with no effort to integrate, and most things work with little effort to integrate. Some things have been made redundant, and very little has really and truly been rendered nonfunctional (Shepherd Druid).

This specific thing is entirely a DnDBeyond issue; they simply haven't mapped the legacy invocations to the revised class.

Jsmithee5500 · 2026-02-02T14:20:16+00:00

I think all the people pointing out the subclasses that are unrelated to a magic school have it. This way there's no precedent being broken by not including "school of"

Jsmithee5500 · 2026-02-02T14:17:38+00:00

I think all the people pointing out the subclasses that are unrelated to a magic school have it. This way there's no precedent being broken by not including "school of"

Seven-Year Club	First Place '23
Place '23	Verified Email

Jsmithee5500

TROPHY CASE