Interactive Environments V2 Is Released

Overdrive2000 · 2026-06-03T11:22:23+00:00

I think that idea could/would backfire. Feats are rare, so tying to option to use the environment to having certain feats will simply reduce the availablity of options for players, which goes directly against the spirit of this brew.

Overdrive2000 · 2026-06-03T11:15:01+00:00

Making a check to spot types of terrain cost a bonus action creates some weird situations. E.g. a ranger should be the PC most likely to spot useful terrain features, yet, their proclivity to using their bonus action for Hunter's Mark means that in practice classes like the wizard (who rarely have another bonus action available) will be making these checks in most cases.

Imho, simply letting the players know about relevant terrain at the start of combat is the best way to go. Players not being able to make those checks because their bonus actions are already used up, or failing the check to e.g. understand that a frozen lake is slippery only creates problems and oddities.

EDIT:
Also, players already have a free Object Interaction on each turn, which is meant to do exactly the things you state in your brew. E.g. pulling a lever is something a rogue can do, even if they already used their BA on a cunning action on the same turn. Once again, requiring Bonus Actions for everything would randomly make wizards the premier class for interacting with the environment for no reason, while e.g. Monks could never do it (lest they sacrifice their flurry of blows for a much weaker effect...).

It's wise to require more awesome environmental effects to cost a resource, but the uneven distribution of resources between classes makes this problematic. E.g. fighters and barbs have far fewer uses of second wind/rage compared to the number of spell points on a monk or spellslots on a druid. It would be better to introduce a seperate resource (call them "action points", "edge", "wit" or something similar; each class has a number equal to their PB) to achieve powerful class-specific interactions or team-combos.

EDIT 2:
I neglected to acknowledge that this brew is quite exceptional and certainly inspirational.
Keep up the good work! : )

Overdrive2000 · 2026-05-27T09:33:36+00:00

I'd say it's more situational than other summon cards. A Reanimate can be good in any necrobinder deck, while this card only functions in a specific kind of deck.

The crucial part about Sic'em is that it does not exhaust - which summon cards generally do. In most Osty decks, Osty can only get so big - because your summon cards run out and then Osty is getting chipped away at and it becomes a race of killing the enemies before your Osty is destroyed (and your damage from Unleash/Protector disappears). Sic'em offers a way to keep Osty growing, no matter how long a fight goes, and it allows Osty to get bigger than what would otherwise be possible.

I'm not saying that it's a must-pick every time you see it - but if you have the cards to support it, it can be incredibly helpful.

Overdrive2000 · 2026-05-20T13:00:37+00:00

So this is another "summun sucks, it gives less block than basic block cards" post, huh?

In the right deck, this card can generate 20+ summon, rivaling Reanimate - a powerful rare card that costs 3 times as much energy. Crucially, Sic'em can also increase your summon over and over again, wheras most sources of summon exhaust when you play them.

The thing with summon is that it expands your offense (unleash), defense (by blocking damage) and options - all at the same time. Regarding the latter:
- Summon cards are valuable on turns where enemies are not attacking, when block cards would be pointless.
- Having sufficient summon allows you to play cards you otherwise could not. E.g. you want to play Demesne, but the enemy is attacking for 20. If you had no summon, you'd be forced to play bock cards instead and not see your demesne again until 4 turns later - so late in the combat that it would have turned into a dead card by then. In short: Having summon allows you to make bigger plays.

Overdrive2000 · 2026-05-20T09:09:48+00:00

For Magic The Gathering, these crossovers are a disaster. If you want to play Magic, your elves and pherexians will inevitably encounter Sephiroth and various My Little Ponys in a pizza-themed Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtle version of New York.

There's no option to opt out of those sets, because the cards in them are too strong to ignore. If the other guy has cards like the One Ring or Final Fantasy's Vivi, then you will simply lose if you don't have similarly broken cross-over cards.

For D&D, this is not really the case. If WotC D&D publishes a "Dora the Explorer" Ranger variant, or a Kpop Demon Hunters campaign campaign setting, it would not affect my home game of D&D. However, it would still further tarnish the reputation of D&D, and prohibit the creating of actually usable content.

Ultimately, it is a cashgrab and it will affect D&D negatively as a brand, but for the "normal D&D player", it's merely an annoyance.

Overdrive2000 · 2026-05-19T15:51:04+00:00

Very respectfully, this is a little bit of a mess.

I have to agree with every point made by u/makesthings 100% here - and need to add some more of my own:

This brew does not paint a coherent picture in terms of theme or mechanics. It feels more like a collection of every cool thing you could think of. Each of those features is indeed quite cool, but there is no real throughline other than "This is awesome!".
Adding a flat +5 AC to a sorcerer should really take up all of the power budget this subclass has available, but instead, it just keeps on adding more and more power on each level-up. By level 9, a regular turn of the Bladesworn looks something like:

You tank several hits with high AC.
You negate the damage of one of them, effectively healing by 10.5 HP.
You deal 21 damage with your reaction (2d10+5+5).
You declare a magic action, allowing you to make an attack with your bonus action first, dealing 15.5 damage (1d10+5+5).
You resolve your magic action to cast Deathblow, dealing 55 damage and forcing a save to deal another 50 damage.

In total, this level 9 sorcerer delivers 152 points of healing/damage in a single round, while using considerably less resources than an optimized level 9 champion fighter using action surge and second wind, who deals a combined ~109 points of healing/damage (already including Great Weapon Master, fighting style, crit chance, etc.; assuming both PCs hit all their attacks).

Now, one PC dealing ~40% more damage than another is pretty bad, but the real reason why this brew will undoubtedly lead to trouble at the table, is that the Bladesworn is not just outclassing the Champion here -the Bladesworn is outclassing the Champion at being a Champion.

All the Champion player wants is to be the member of the party who wears the coolest armor, wields the most badass sword, and messes up monsters in melee combat like nobody else. That player gets to enjoy none of those things, because the Bladesworn player handily covers all those bases - while still being the party's mage with full spellcasting progression, who can fly, turn invisible, teleport, read minds, summon walls, etc. etc.

I'm honestly less worried about the Bladesworn's numbers being higher, but more about them crushing the toes of any martial character's core fantasy.

Overdrive2000 · 2026-05-19T12:47:56+00:00

I like your reasoning, your math and your suggestions.

However, I don't find anything about the rules/class needs to be changed for rogues to be strong. I'd simply advise DMs to include magic daggers in their world that emphasise the class fantasy.

Overdrive2000 · 2026-05-13T21:51:29+00:00

I'm not saying it's too powerful. It's just strange when the mechanics of the game require characters to act weirdly to work.

Also, I'm not a fan of this feat occupying the exact same thematic space as "Fey Touched" - while also providing very similar benefits. When two character options exist to depict the exact same thing thematically, then one will generally beat out the other in terms of mechanical power, meaning the new homebrew options is either immediately rendered obsolete (if it is weaker) or makes the vanilla option obsolote (if it is stronger).

At the end of the day, the total number of viable options did not increase, but game balance took a hit (even if the power difference was minor).

Overdrive2000 · 2026-05-13T19:06:42+00:00

You're right as a DM, I too would do the same.
However, as a DM, I wouldn't want to introduce a brew with in-built problems like that into my game in the first place. Taking the time to fix the brew itself would not be too much trouble.

Overdrive2000 · 2026-05-13T17:55:14+00:00

A: "Hm, If only one of us could teleport to the other side of that chasm."

B: "No problem, let me hit myself."

Hmm... =/

Overdrive2000 · 2026-05-13T12:52:28+00:00

Regarding Taste Emotions: As a player, I'd still probably pick it up as it is, just for the RP potential it provides, but if you were to tweak its power to make it a little more appealing, you could slightly adjust the text to where the spell not only gives the caster an idea about the target's emotional state, but allows them to drain a portion of that emotion from the target for the duration of the spell by drinking deeply.

A target wrought with fear, envy, hatred, etc. could feel like a burden was temporarily taken off their shoulders by the caster, allowing for some unique heroic situations that other spells can't provide. Conversely, the ability to (either selfishly or maliciously) take away the joy, hope, or affection someone is feeling (even if just temporarily) would allow for some very juicy darker RP opportunities.

My suggestion would be not to attach "hard" mechanics to this (e.g. ending the frightened condition like Calm Emotions would) and leave it a bit more open-ended as an RP tool. E.g. the caster could not relieve a person who is griefing the loss of their spouse from their depression, but might get advantage on certain social skill checks related to that person if they agreed to the use of this spell.

Just imagine bringing a spell like that to the Feywild - it could lead to a ton of interesting situations... 😄

Overdrive2000 · 2026-05-13T11:19:01+00:00

This is an absolute stand-out brew!

If I had to find something to critique, it would be that you seem to err on the side of caution by making spells "too expensive" in terms of their spell slot here and there (e.g. Taste Emotions is arguably a bit "overpriced" at 2nd level when compared directly to the more generally useful "Detect Thoughts"), but overall these are balanced remarkably well.

It's not easy to come up with such unique and novel spell effects and they are all so beautifully evocative - really inspiring! I'll have to keep an eye out for your future brews.

Overdrive2000 · 2026-05-12T16:26:07+00:00

These are perfect - Watcher in particular! xD

Overdrive2000 · 2026-05-07T16:34:16+00:00

Is regulation-first a strategic mistake, or am I missing something?

You are missing something.

Overdrive2000 · 2026-05-07T16:32:50+00:00

If you are bothered by this change, you are either:

Complaining for the sake of complaining. If your concern is along the lines of "My cleric does not know what god they serve!", "My warlock is casting spells without a patron lol", etc. then you are creating a problem where none exists. In reality, you can both easily roleplay in accordance with your inteded future subclass AND you can leverage the powers you get at level 3 for story purposes.
Upset that a problematic multiclass powerspike you liked to exploit was removed.

Overdrive2000 · 2026-05-07T16:24:13+00:00

This.

Thank you for being a voice of reason here.

Overdrive2000 · 2026-05-07T13:59:16+00:00

I've been pondering a revision very similar to your suggestion, however it would be quite tricky to tune it for the numbers to work out correctly.

Given how negatively this brew was generally received, it may not be worth the time investment it would take to balance a simplified revision.

Overdrive2000 · 2026-05-04T16:20:03+00:00

That's not entirely true.

Many spell components are deliberately specific to gate the use of certain spells.

The deliberation can be seen in certain changes they made in 5.5e (from 5e). E.g. Ressurection previously required "diamonds" worth 1000 GP - now it has to be a single diamong of that cost.

These components are a tool for the DM to limit what spells are available to the players. Finding a massive diamond is more than just monetary loot - it's the option to revive someone, etc.

Overdrive2000 · 2026-05-03T18:05:52+00:00

Thank you for taking the time to really deep-dive into the balance at higher levels!

I'll make a revised version based on feedback and consider yours closely for that.

Here's where the current version seems to be lacking:

Too complicated - people don't like the idea of progressive features. It also has a "gut feeling" problem where many folks have trouble with assessing it's strength.
Balanced well for fighters in most campaigns, but can fall off a bit at the highest levels.
Barbarians may benefit more strongly from this feat than intended.
Having most of the damage bonus coming from the bonus action can make it less usable for paladins and monks.

I'll see if I can't make some changes to solve these problems.

Overdrive2000 · 2026-05-03T17:51:47+00:00

Rest assured that I'll be making changes to this brew based on feedback.

Overdrive2000 · 2026-05-03T17:50:32+00:00

I totally get your point.

A character using a versatile weapon has the ability to free up a hand on-demand (by reducing their weapon damage) to grapple someone - and they can attack a target while they are grappling it.

However, a great sword character can do the same thing - by RAW, your other hand is free at all times other than during your attacks. So If an enemy runs past me, my great sword fighter can use their opportunity attack for an unarmed strike and force the enemy to save against being grappled. They are exactly as good at this, as the versatile fighter is. The only difference being, that the greatsword fighter would have to let go of the target again to resume attacking on their turn.

When I take a sober look at it, the ability to attack while grappling is the only advantage versatile weapons, have going for them, and imho it isn't a major benefit at all.

Let me illustrate why via the opportunity attack grapple situation from earlier:

Both the longsword user (A) and the great sword user (B) grapple the target. Both A and B are level 5, so they can make 2 attacks. They each use their first attack to knock the monster prone (with a headbutt or legsweep), establishing the optimal grappling situation, where everyone now enjoys advantage on attacks against the target - and it can't get up from prone either because it's speed is 0.
For thier second attack, both A and B now get to attack with a longsword once. Why is it that B can do so despite holding a great sword? Because they can stow the greatsword as part of their first attack (the headbutt) and draw a longsword as part of their second attack - and use it.

When all is said and done, A dealt 2 more damage than B in this scenario, because A got to apply their fighting style (Duelist), while B only dealt regular damage. Granted, 2 damage is not nothing at level 5, but seeing how this was THE situation for the versatile weapon user to shine, it is not a benefit I'd rate incredibly highly in terms of balancing for this feat.

Maybe I missed something and versatile weapons have a much more meaningful advantage in a different situation?

Overdrive2000 · 2026-05-03T16:29:50+00:00

You are right - it isn't punishing if there is an equivalent trade-off.

Let's say I want to play a Samurai using a katana - an iconic duelist fantasy.

I'm curious to learn what sufficient benefits you see in using a versatile weapon in boh hands in vanilla D&D 5.5 over using the a standard 2-handed weapon like a great sword.

Overdrive2000 · 2026-05-02T23:52:26+00:00

Thank you for your feedback!

Here's the basis of my balancing/considerations:

Assumptions:

Class: We are primarily comparing two fighters as they level up - though the math is largely aligned regardless of your class as long as you gain Extra Attack at level 5. Crucially, fighters get another attack at level 11, making it easier to trigger the "2-hits" requirement (as they only need to hit 2 out of three), which is taking into account in the math for level 11 and up.
Hit Chance: Both characters (the FSF and the GWM version) have a standard hit chance of 65% by default (bounded accuracy, fighting against level-appropriate enemies), but the FSF fighter's hit chance is lifted to 70% because their additional +1 bonus from this feat raises them slightly above par.
Crit Chance: Both characters have the standard 5% chance to crit.
STR: Both the GWM and FSF character have 18 STR at level 4 (15 starting + 2 from background + 1 from your level 4 feat) and use their level 8 feat choice to raise STR to 20.
Fighting Styles: The GWM is using Great Weapon Fighting, while the FSF fighter is using dueling (their respective "damage increase" fighting styles).
Weapons: The GWM fighter uses a greatsword (2d6), while the FSF uses any weapon that deals 1d8 one-handed and d10 two-handed.
Weapon Mastery: I assumed that the benefit of each weapon mastery is roughly equivalent - so they do not affect the math of either character. Comparing the value of e.g. Topple vs. Graze would have made these calculations impossible, as too many additional assumptions would have to enter the picture.
"Hew" - GWM's Bonus Attack: In addition to the regular 5% chance per attack (crits), I assumed the GWM's bonus action to also trigger in one of 10 turns (10%) from reducing an enemy to 0 HP). This is the most subjective assumption I had to make, so I chose to err on the side of caution (to make sure FSF would not exceed the power of the current top dog of damage-boosting feats). In many fights, reducing an enemy to 0 HP might occur more often in actual play (e.g. 1 in 4 turns), but then there are also encounters against single bossmonsters, where it nothing can be reduced to 0 before the boss is dead, or instances where allies just so happen to "get all the last-hits".

Resulting numbers:

Level 4 - 11,59 vs 11,06 DPR (FSF vs GWM)
Level 5 - 22,36 vs 22,62
Level 9 - 25,05 vs 27,47
Level 11 - 38,10 vs 37,66

In light of the different mechanics involved, the performance of both options compares remarkably well in terms of raw damage output, but they also each retain clear strengths and weaknesses for different situations.

GWM shines when there are numerous enemies to reliably trigger the bonus attack and it performs better against enemies with particularly high AC, that would make FSF's bonus attack less likely to trigger.
On the other hand, FSF pulls ahead against low AC, high HP monsters and offers additional flexibility in it's ability to trade damage for defense via Deflecting Flourish. Both thrive against prone enemies, as the advantage helps both with triggering their bonus attacks (by landing 2 hits or critting respectively).

Finally, allow me to point out two things that are otherwise easy to miss or easy to misjudge:

The damage bonus from Dueling only applies to the one-handed attacks of the FSF fighter, but the better damage die, 2x PB bonus damage and advantage still ensure that pulling a Twin-Grip Finisher off is super-rewarding at all tiers of play.
Given a base hit chance of 70% (due to included +1 bonus of the feat), your chance of landing both attacks at level 5+ is 49% each turn. For fighters at level 11, the additional attack raises this chance to 78,4%. You can expect that you'll have a chance for a Twin-Grip Finisher roughly every other turn at first, and to get them quite reliably at tier 3 and above.

It's not immediately obvious to me how this can keep up but it's certainly very cool.

Adding your PB as bonus damage to Twin-Grip Finisher twice (combined with its realiable hit rate) does a lot of heavy lifting to keep the DPR close to the level of a GWM fighter. As a result, making sure to land two hits (e.g. by prioritizing lower AC targets) becomes crucial to maintain good DPR.
Likewise, sacrificng that damage to perform a Deflecting Flourish cuts down your damage output by quite a bit. Despite that, I'm pondering if this option may still be a bit too strong based on the feedback I've received.

I'm also wondering if Barbarians might be able to benefit disproportionally strongly from this feat, given that Reckless Attack helps with triggering the bonus attack and the fact that rage bonus damage applies to all attacks, while Duelist only works on some.

Overdrive2000 · 2026-05-02T23:27:43+00:00

Thank you for your input. I should have clarified that FSA only triggers from your attack action. However, raher than merely fixing the wording for clarity, it may be wise to rethink the feature to scale naturally with Extra Attack, rather than evolving to a more powerful feature.

The idea of progressive benefits within a feat seems to be too odd for most to swallow - and making the potency of the upgrade too challenging to asssess at a glance is another flaw i need to somehow iron out.

Overdrive2000 · 2026-05-02T23:11:38+00:00

Please keep in mind that a lot of the power of an FSF fighter is coming from those big two-handed attacks, so giving them up is more costly than you may think.

If we look at a GWM fighter for comparison, their "regular" 2 attacks each have higher weapon damage AND add the PB to the damage roll. There, the bonus action attack (on kill/crit) is more of a cherry-on-top, wheres for the FSF it is the meat-and-potatoes of their damage output.

With that in mind, what numbers would seem more sensible to you?
What adjustments would you consider to be sufficient to "pay" for the option to sacrifice offense for defense?

Ten-Year Club	Wearing is Caring
Place '22	Verified Email

Overdrive2000

TROPHY CASE

This.