Ease of Use and Book Design - the Dangerous Efficiency of One D&D

As a note, I might regret the use of the word "dangerous" in this title, because I abhor internet sensationalism, especially when talking about a rather wonky nuance to a work-in-progress update to the rules of a game hobby that players and groups can very easily ignore. So, to any reading, please join me in taking a breath and remembering that we're only passionate about this because we love the hobby, and that, especially in a game like this that exists in books and text documents that aren't going away, nothing's going to change our world (jai guru deva).

 I started reading the Pathfinder Second Edition rules, which are all available for free, provided by Paizo online. They bear a lot of similarities with Starfinder, but also incorporate some concepts from D&D 5th Edition that are appealingly familiar. The Proficiency Bonus, an invention of 5E, is not present in Starfinder (and I assume not in Pathfinder 1E either). The PB is a very useful way of tracking the way that a player character will just generally get more powerful as they level up in the broadest, simplest terms. Your hit bonus, your spell save DC, any skills you have, and a number of other features just go up a certain amount as you level up, independent of any other choices or features you have.

This sort of efficient design can be really effective and easy to figure out.

But sometimes, it can be a surprising hinderance.

In the 2014 PHB (the only 5th Edition PHB that yet exists,) every individual class that has the Spellcasting Feature fully explains how spellcasting works. There's a lengthy set of paragraphs and a bolded section that explains the way you calculate a saving throw DC. The same is true of Fighting Style among the Fighters, Paladins, and Rangers. Extra Attack, which Barbarians, Fighters, Monks, Paladins, and Rangers all get, is explained in every class entry.

Likewise, the Dwarf, Elf, Half-Elf, Half-Orc, and Gnome each have Darkvision, and in each instance, the way that Darkvision works is explained.

From an efficiency standpoint, this is horribly inefficient. It's precisely the same feature (sure, Drow get 120 feet instead of 60 feet, but it works the same.) I think the spellcasting segments in particular are huge - taking up maybe a full page of each class segment in the class chapter.

But it also makes it relatively easy to use.

When I was reading the Starfinder rules (and sorry for always going to Starfinder - it's just that it's the only d20 TTRPG for which I both have the rulebook and have read it) I was rolling up a Soldier (rough equivalent to the Fighter) and found myself deeply confused about their capstone ability, Kill Shot. Essentially, a high-level Soldier in Starfinder can sometimes hit someone with a weapon so hard that the target needs to make a Fortitude Saving Throw (literally a Constitution saving throw - Starfinder only has Con, Wis, and Dex saves, but calls them Fortitude, Will, and Reflex saves to make it very clear they're not ability checks) or they instantly die.

But nowhere in the Soldier chapter is it explained how one gets that saving throw DC.

Now, it turns out that before the class section, there's a segment that explains the general formula for figuring out a saving throw DC for class abilities (if memory serves, it's 10 + your class' primary ability modifier + your level in that class, or sometimes half your class level). That's all well and good - numbers go higher in Starfinder than they do in 5th Edition D&D, so having a DC of 28 or something is not unreasonable.

But the problem was that I found myself flipping back and forth for several minutes, sure that I'd gone insane, searching for where the hell I could figure out how to calculate the DC.

Starfinder has an extensive feat system. Every player character gains a feat every other level (I want to say every odd level). In addition, though, classes will often grant you feats. One such feat is weapon proficiency (forgive me if I get some of these terms wrong). At a certain level (2 or 3) in your class, you get the "weapon proficiency feat" in every weapon type that your class is designed to use. The feat allows you to add your level to the damage you deal with a weapon with which you have this feat (again numbers in Starfinder go up a lot higher than in 5E). Technically speaking, this means that a Soldier is picking up maybe a dozen feats at this level-up. They all do essentially the same thing, which is actually quite simple to explain, but reading the class entry in the core rulebook does not explain this to you. Practically, you're supposed to already know how that feat works and skip forward (much as a 5E veteran can typically ignore the whole Spellcasting section when they're playing a Druid after having played a Cleric). But for a new player, this creates a sort of...

You remember the quest in Zelda Ocarina of Time where you had to do this elaborate series of trades in order to get the powerful Biggoron Sword?

The design of One D&D has moved D&D in a more modular, systematic direction, which I think can be wonderful. I like having clear definitions of, for example, what you get out of a Tool Proficiency (for one, it makes Sleight of Hand a clear choice for Rogues to take as a skill).

The embrace of feats as a core gameplay system is part of this, and again, I think it's actually pretty good in a lot of ways. Feats in particular have always felt like a painful trade between more interesting gameplay and the satisfaction of getting things "maxed out," and for this OCD-sufferer, the fact that I can still actually get my most important stat to 20 while taking all feats is a huge relief.

What I worry about, though, purely from a layout and ease-of-use perspective, is that this will encourage WotC to present One D&D in a more efficient, but less comprehensible manner. Yes, Great Weapon Fighting works identically for the Fighter as it does for the Paladin. But when that choice is presented to me, I want to be able to read it in class section, and not have two entries that just say "look at the feat chapter."

Indeed, one of the most bafflingly designed elements of the 2014 PHB is its infamously terrible index. There are tons of entries in there where you'll look up, say, "mounts," and it'll say "see pack animals," which then has the page number - when it would have been literally less ink to simply print the page number under both entries.

I'll confess that I don't know much about the demands of formatting and laying out books like the D&D core rulebooks. And certainly, D&D gets the benefit of being such a beloved brand that they can print three core rulebooks for their game that they expect anyone who wants to run it to buy, rather than a single core rulebook like basically any other TTRPG (admittedly, Starfinder kind of requires two, because there are no monster stat blocks in the Core Rulebook).

More players than ever are enfranchised into D&D thanks to 5th Edition, and none of these concerns I'm voicing are really for myself. I've been DMing since 2015, and I've been following the development of One D&D pretty closely (as you might be able to tell given the volume of blog posts I've made about it).

But one of the things that made 5th Edition D&D so successful was that someone like me, who had basically never played any TTRPGs before (other than a few sessions of the Song of Ice and Fire RPG) could pop these books open, read them, and start running a game with relatively little friction (though I think the DMG encounter building rules were too complicated and discouraged using lots of low-CR monsters, which would have made my early adventures more exciting, rather than having a single Orog downed by the paladin's crit smite before anyone else had a turn).

The point being: sometimes shorthand, and this kind of systematic filing away of certain features can look elegant and efficient, but redundancies can often make things far more comprehensible.

I might even go a little more radical and say that I think that One D&D's impulse to classify many different things as "Feats" is a bad impulse. As it stands, First-level Feats, Fighting Styles, Fourth-level Feats, and Epic Boons are all officially Feats in One D&D, when the equivalent to 2014 5E effectively has 4th level feats as the only thing that work quite the same way. I'm tempted to say that a different word should be used for 1st level feats, and that we should keep Fighting Styles and Epic Boons (which are acknowledged as "20th level feats") should be kept their own thing.

I'm less zealous about the latter proposition, but it's a thought.

Class Groups: Speculating on Warriors

 The presence of the Fighter, Barbarian, and Monk in the Warrior group is not really that controversial (some have argued the Monk is an odd fit, to be fair). Each of these is a combat-oriented class that gets the Extra Attack feature, and is most typically found in melee (Fighters can be built as ranged combatants, but I think most people first imagine Fighters as heavily-armored melee brawlers).

The weirdness of the Warrior group is the exclusion of other classes - the Ranger and Paladin - who share many of these traits. Rangers are most typically imagined as ranged combatants (though I, fool that I am, made a Strength-focused dual-wielding ranger). But Paladins, along with Barbarians and Monks, are obligate melee fighters - their mechanics only really work properly when they're fighting with a melee weapon.

People tend to divide the classes into two broad categories: "martial" classes and spellcasters. Essentially, where I think this breaks down, is that some classes are generally going to be fighting with a weapon while others will generally use spells. There are some exceptional cases: Clerics' main focus is clearly spellcasting, but about half the subclasses have features that buff their melee weapons (and often give them proficiency with martial weapons) in what I imagine is an effort to encourage them to use these attacks not necessarily as their main group role, but to function as their "default action" when they don't need to cast any big spell. (I think the buff to their weapon damage doesn't tend to keep up with a cantrip like Toll the Dead.) Druids can also be somewhat weapon-based, either using the natural weapons of a wild shape form or with things like shillelagh or even just using a scimitar while buffed with something like Circle of Spores' Symbiotic Entity. Warlocks, likewise, can sort of build themselves a bit as a "martial" class with things like Pact of the Blade (especially when combined with the Hexblade patron).

With the Experts, we saw that the things linking the classes are the following: they all get the Expertise feature, Epic Boons (which are basically level 20 feats,) are categorized by class group, and we've been told (though have yet to see) that magic items that may have previously said "requires attunement by a cleric, druid, or warlock" or the like will now likely say "requires attunement by a Priest."

With the Ranger update, we see that, exceptionally, Rangers are allowed to pick a Fighting Style despite not being a Warrior, which I think strongly implies that Fighting Style will be the unifying class mechanic between the Warrior classes.

This is actually quite a change, because of the three Warrior classes, only the Fighter currently gets Fighting Styles. At a baseline, only Fighters, Rangers, and Paladins get them. The only class I believe can get Fighting Styles outside of a feat (which all Fighting Styles will be considered) is the College of Swords Bard, which can pick up Dueling or Two Weapon Fighting.

Barbarians getting Fighting Style, I think, makes a lot of sense. You could argue that their lack of it in the past was meant to reflect the notion that they don't really have any formal training, the way a Fighter might. Many of the conventional fighting styles would work well for them - Great Weapon Fighting, Two Weapon Fighting (and given the Light weapon buff, this might be a very popular choice for Barbarians, who already liked dual-wielding) and Dueling all make a lot of sense for them. Really, only Defense wouldn't make sense for them (they can wear medium armor, but what Barbarian gives up their mobility for a little more AC when you have Unarmored Defense?) Oh, and Archery.

Now, Monks are another matter. Archery, Defense, and Protection are basically useless to them. Great Weapon Fighting is also, I'd imagine, unlikely to be too popular - it basically only applies to a quarterstaff (turning a d8 from an average of 4.5 to 5.25 - or I suppose 5.5 to 6.3 if you're tier 4). We also don't yet know whether Martial Arts and its bonus action attack will still work that way, or if it will be folded into the attack similarly to the light weapon change. I've often felt that the Martial Arts bonus action attack more or less lets the Monk dual-wield their fists, with two-weapon fighting rolled in. If they can wield two light weapons and then also get a bonus action unarmed strike, that would be very powerful (essentially getting four attacks per turn after level 5).

The thing to bear in mind is that there might be more fighting styles we didn't get in the Expert Class UA because this was meant to just provide the ones a Ranger might take. One that buffs unarmed strikes might be too obvious for a Monk. If we see some of the Tasha's era Fighting Styles, things like Blind Fighting could be a really fun choice for a Monk.

Beyond Fighting Style, the way the group is described, they seem to be designed to play a tank-like role for the group, dishing out damage in melee but also mitigating damage they take.

Of the three, Barbarians are the only ones who really explicitly mitigate damage, but a Fighter can be built to have a high Armor Class and thus take significantly less damage. Outside of builds like my Eldritch Knight (who, I'll boast, effectively had an AC of 27 thanks to Shield) the Fighter doesn't really have any benefit in this strategy over the Paladin (and you could argue that, thanks to paladins' Aura of Protection, they play this role slightly better).

The Monk, though, falls behind on survivability. Monks can put out a lot of damage (though they suffer by comparison when their allies load up on powerful magic items - though perhaps not as much as some might think, as there's nothing preventing you from getting a really powerful quarterstaff) but while they can eventually get a decent AC, they suffer from not quite catching up with heavily-armored (or even medium-armored) classes in terms of AC while at the same time being a d8 hit die class, giving them generally less HP than Barbarians, Fighters, Paladins, and even Rangers (I don't know why Rangers have a d10 rather than a d8).

I've proposed mechanics the Monk should have to reduce their incoming damage - I like the idea of subtracting their proficiency bonus (though this runs into the problem of being too powerful with a one-level dip, so perhaps it should simply go up with Monk level or maybe be based on Dexterity modifier,) which would make them stronger in some situations compared to the Barbarian, while less powerful in others. (The Monk becomes the mob tank while the Barbarian is the big-monster tank).

I really like the general approach to the Monk, but I'd like to see the class revisited in a way the Ranger was to really get it to a point where it can overcome the perception of being underpowered.

My speculation here is a little less focused on the class group than the classes itself. I will say that I think it would be very cool to see some Warrior-specific magic items. Granted, that can often just take the form of magic weapons (and armor,) but I'll be curious to see if they come up with some more creative ideas.

Regarding Barbarians, I think that some of the punishing elements of Rage could be removed. My Ravnica game has a Selesyna Loxodon Ancestral Guardian Barbarian. Now that we've finally hit 15th level, his Rage does not fade if he doesn't attack or get attacked. I've never really found Rage dropping in this way to be an interesting challenge - it just feels like a way to screw the player out of a major resource.

In general, I think that either Rage should be easier to maintain, or Barbarians should have more things they can do outside of Rage. For example, the Ancestral Guardian features basically all only work if you're Raging (except the ritual spells,) and so I ran a lengthy dungeon in which the Barbarian got to the final boss without any Rages left, and basically could do nothing beyond his normal attack action. Yes, resource management is important, but Barbarians should still feel like Barbarians even if they've run out of this fairly limited resource.

So I'd just let it last the full minute, but on top of that, I'd also let some features that currently require you to be Raging to work all the time.

For Fighters, I'm very curious to see how radical they go. I've speculated, and I've seen others speculate, that Fighters could wind up all getting Maneuvers like a Battle Master. This would be a pretty radical change. Currently, the Fighter is kind of a blank canvas as a base class, but with extra ASIs (or extra feats, as we'd say in the One D&D format) to build the class to your liking.

The Fighter, as a class, isn't broken, but it does rely on its subclasses to become interesting. Maneuvers would certainly raise the skill cap for the class if introduced, but I think it could also give the class a clearer identity than simply "the customizable class" while still being fairly customizable. I could even imagine new fighter subclasses being built with maneuvers in mind. The Eldritch Knight, for example, might use maneuvers to produce magical effects (or even just produce Arcane spells) rather than using a system of spell slots. The Arcane Archer, likewise, has always felt like a flavorful but not as powerful version of the Battle Master, with an emphasis on ranged combat. Rune Knights could easily reimagine their runes as maneuvers. Psi Warriors already use their psionic energy dice in a similar manner to superiority dice (admittedly, this was designed to look and work similar to Soulknife Rogues).

We don't know what subclasses are going to be printed in the One D&D PHB - for all the hollering that the online community has had over these documents, my takeaway has been that the approach has been a very conservative one - mostly built on tweaking the existing system as it is, usually providing quality-of-life improvements along with a few experimental concepts.

As such, I'm going in with the assumption that we'll be seeing every subclass from the 2014 PHB revised but kept, along with a few more (because the total they announced is more than the subclasses in the existing PHB).

The first question, then, is what happens to the Battle Master if, effectively, every Fighter is now a Battle Master. The other question that raises is what might have to give in order to make up for the greater power that Fighters in general would have.

Addressing the first question:

Likely, we'd have to either see the Battle Master replaced with another subclass or we'd need to see a significant redesign that seeks to revisit the concept of the Battle Master and evoke its flavor mechanically. I'd be in favor of the second option. Currently, the Battle Master's subclass features are all built around getting your maneuvers and the superiority dice that fuel them, and then improving those, with only two exceptions. At level 3, you gain one artisan's tool proficiency (which, to be honest, feels sort of out of nowhere and not really in line with the flavor of the subclass). At 7, you get Know Your Enemy, which lets you learn details about a creature if you spend a minute observing them. This one is actually very cool and flavorful, though of limited use (especially in a campaign without a lot of social gameplay and intrigue, like a dungeon crawl or a wilderness exploration campaign).

My sense is that if maneuvers became a Fighter-wide feature, it would make sense for subclasses to grant maneuver options. And in that case, I could see providing a more limited list as a baseline and then making the Battle Master really focus on being a battlefield commander - things like Commander's Strike, Distracting Strike, Goading Attack, Rally, and Bait and Switch are all maneuvers that make you feel like someone who is truly mastering the battlefield and in particular setting up your allies to work together as a unit - something I feel is really there as part of the Battle Master flavor (whereas a Champion is there to be the center of attention on the battlefield, the Battle Master is all about group tactics). I could see expanding the Battle Master's options as a team player could give them a nice niche if their current central mechanic is given to all Fighters.

Now, of course, giving Maneuvers to all Fighters - a class that isn't exactly underpowered as it stands - could risk making them a little too powerful. Power creep is somewhat inevitable in a game where nerfs are going to be booed while buffs are going to be celebrated (look at the pretty much universal positive response to the Light weapon change and the more or less total condemnation of the critical hit changes that were immediately rescinded,) and so I think taking power away from Fighters, even if balanced against making maneuvers universal, will elicit a lot of condemnation.

The simplest nerf I could imagine is taking away one or both of the Fighter's extra feats. Currently, Fighters get 7 ASIs (again, under the new system these would be simply referred to as feats) as they level up. Rogues get 6, while all other classes get 5. I've tended to see the Fighter's many ASIs as a way to make up for the fact that their base class only has a couple of features, and thus you're not paying as much to add in customization (something like Great Weapon Master, if it was a class feature, would be a pretty good and important one). With the greater complexity of Maneuvers, perhaps the Fighter wouldn't need those extra opportunities for Feats (especially given that taking non-ASI feats in One D&D looks like it will be less punishing due to your getting half an ASI anyway - I honestly think we might see lots of character builds that never take an ASI).

This, also, would probably not cause as much of an outcry as taking away something like Action Surge, or the Fighter's 3rd and 4th attack - things that people really love about the class (well, I'm assuming others love the latter - I don't know how many people actually play into tier 3, but I can tell you it feels pretty cool to get three attacks per round, or six with an action surge.)

Essentially, I see them going one of two directions with the Fighter - we're either going to see a radical redesign of the class, or we're going to see it barely changed at all. I don't really see them going with a middle ground between the two.

Now that we're in November, we're probably a week or two out from the next UA. I'd guess we'll be seeing another class group preview, but I have no idea which one they'll do next.

Furthermore, I don't know what other elements we'll see them explore. The Rules Glossary part of each of these has, quietly, been the most important part of the documents, given that it details things that affect everyone, rather than just the modular choices you make with a particular character.

I'll also say that I think the weird new spell preparation rules - where you're forced to prepare a certain number of spells at each level, rather than just a total number of spells in general - is something I'm hoping will be walked back. That's unlikely to be relevant to the Warrior group - the group for which only one subclass of its three classes has conventional spellcasting. But as a sort of broad summation for these class group posts, that's something I'm eager to see more about.

Fingers crossed we'll see that next UA soon and we can have a ton more information to analyze, critique, and speculate on.

Building a Better Death Knight

 In The Lord of the Rings, we arguably get the most iconic death knights in all of fantasy literature - the Nazgûl, which translates in the Black Speech of Mordor to "Ringwraiths." (Nazg is clearly the word for ring, given the poem on the One Ring, and I wonder if it's simply "ul," or possibly "gul" that means "wraith." The latter seems more likely to me given that it links it to the real Arabic "ghul," which derives from "ghala," meaning "to seize" and is, of course, the basis for the English word "ghoul.")

Death Knights have a certain potency because they turn the most straightforward fantasy hero - the knight in shining armor - on its head. In D&D and many other fantasy RPGs, the Death Knight is a mirror of the heroic Paladin class, and the backstory is often that of a paladin who has turned their back on goodness to instead serve evil. This betrayal places them in a cursed state of undeath, but they have many of the same capabilities they used as paladins, only turned backward - where Paladins are adept at fighting undeath and wield holy light, Death Knights are undead themselves, often commanding undead forces, and wield evil darkness.

Now, more recent editions of D&D have introduced nuance to the Paladin class. Though originally all paladins were lawful good in nature, today the paladin is more simply defined as someone who wields divine magic born out of their conviction and adherence to a sacred quest. They swear an oath, and their faith is rewarded with power to accomplish their quest.

The DMG presents an alternate subclass to the paladin: the Oathbreaker. While this is primarily intended for NPCs, a DM can also allow it as an option for players. Personally, I'd recommend DMs avoid building NPCs as full player characters with a bunch of class features, because that is an enormous thing to have to run along with everything else at the table.

But the Oathbreaker Paladin is clearly meant to represent someone on the path to becoming a death knight.

Returning to our example of the Nazgûl, the Ringwraiths are ultimately servants. Indeed, I think you could fairly well approximate the Lord of the Rings using nine Death Knights that are servants of a Lich (the One Ring being Sauron's phylactery). I might argue that Sauron is more accurately a fiend, which means that the Ring might be more akin to the amulets used by the Demon Lords to survive death even in the Abyss (my headcanon, until contradicted, is that Orcus taught Vecna how to make a phylactery based on this process of creating a demonic amulet, and that liches have borrowed demonic magic to become what they are). Of course, Sauron is 100% Lawful Evil, not Chaotic Evil (Morgoth is the latter) but you get the gist.

And, in a sense, I suppose this is why in the Monster Manual they are not legendary creatures - they serve some greater power that corrupted them.

That being said, one of my other major influences is the Warcraft series, and its most iconic villain is Arthas, the corrupted prince of Lordaeron, who eventually becomes the Lich King - the lord of the Undead Scourge. While later lore would reveal that the Lich King was at least intended to be a puppet for a god-like entity of death, the Lich King is like a Death Knight who commands an army of liches and other, lesser death knights along with countless undead in myriad forms. (Before he becomes the Lich King, Arthas undergoes the classic paladin-to-death knight transition). The point is, Arthas would most certainly be depicted as a legendary creature in D&D.

Indeed, I think that even as a minion of some greater evil, I still find it odd that the Death Knight is not a legendary creature. A Death Knight is no rank-and-file minion, but should fill the role of top lieutenant. The Ringwraiths are the most powerful of Sauron's weapons, and the Witch-King of Angmar is the closest he gets to a second-in-command (indeed, the Witch-King is more or less the world's most dangerous evil when Sauron is in hiding in the early parts of the Third Age, and successfully destroys Arnor, Gondor's sister-civilization in the north where Aragorn's ancestors ruled as king).

(As a note, we should also remember that most stories don't have "levels," so we shouldn't read too much into the fact that a single ranger scared off five Ringwraiths with a torch when considering the power level of our stat block.)

Now, in terms of creature design, Death Knights have a number of paladin spells. However, given the new focus on moving away from player-style spellcasting in recent designs, we can shift things around. Death Knights are already quite formidable in melee, so I don't think we need to add any kind of ranged spell attacks as part of their general rotation.

We're going to aim for our DK to be CR 17, like the 2014 Monster Manual version of it.

But let's also think a little more broadly about what we want out of a Death Knight.

First, we want them to be really deadly with their weapons. This is already reflected in the fact that the 2014 version deals an extra 4d8 necrotic damage with their weapons. With a normal attack, the death knight deals an average of 27 damage per hit, and gets to attack three times a round, which means a total average damage output (assuming all three hit) of 81 damage. The necrotic damage dealt also lets them get around the fact that their weapon isn't inherently magical (they have the Magic Weapon spell, but we're going to get rid of their spellcasting trait, except perhaps for some utility stuff like dispel magic). Player characters almost never care whether the damage is from a magical weapon, though, so especially with the necrotic damage in there, I don't think we need to worry much about making their weapons magical. We're going to take this into consideration when figuring out their Offensive Challenge Rating, or OCR.

But just being able to put out a lot of damage isn't really that exciting. We've got to think about what it means for these dread beings to act. One thing that I think is core to Tolkien's sense of power is the effect of being able to inspire emotions in others. In the books, the army of the dead that Aragorn brings with him to break the siege of Minas Tirith works primarily by terrifying the orcs, not so much killing them as driving them into disarray and breaking their lines, so that the defenders can pour in and mop up the invading army. Conversely, one of Gandalf's most potent traits is the ability to inspire those around him - he rarely goes around casting obvious magical spells, but instead fills the mortals around him with the courage and resolve to fight against the darkness.

As such, I think that this could play into our Death Knight design. And, because they're related to paladins, we're going to borrow something from a paladin subclass - no, not the oathbreaker, but the Oath of Conquest, which is another "evil" subclass - and one that I think is more lawful evil than the out-for-themselves Oathbreaker. Essentially, I think that they should have something similar to Conquering Presence, but that they can do continuously, and potentially fold in the Aura of Conquest, or something similar.

Now, fear effects are relatively easy to overcome, thanks to Paladins' Aura of Courage and things like the Halflings' Brave trait. But the DC here should be relatively high and coupling it with immobility could be quite powerful. Still, generally speaking I think a lot of fights wind up locking down in melee, and it becomes a race of trading blows. Mobility makes monsters a lot deadlier.

On the other hand, the Death Knight is not nimble and quick. If anything, the dread fear they inspire is only enhanced by their slow, plodding advance. How do we square these?

Borrowing a little from Blizzard, both Death Knights in World of Warcraft and Leoric, the Skeleton King in Heroes of the Storm (Leoric had it first) have an ability called Wraith Walk, which allows them to slip into a ghostly form and move quickly for a moment.

I think this does a good job of making them seem like the implacable foe that they tend to be portrayed as. Thus, I might give our Death Knight as bonus action to let them break grapples and restraints, and possibly even avoid opportunity attacks. While I'm tempted to simply make this additional movement, I don't think Death Knights should be particularly fast - they should be able to follow you slowly, like a slasher villain, and take all the time they need to catch up to you.

The only downside to this is that if it's a bonus action it's always on, rather than being a special moment where the party realizes just how much trouble they're in. We could limit this to a certain number of times a day, or make it a recharge ability (though recharge abilities I feel should be scary and deal extra damage).

Instead, this might be best done as a legendary action (though I'm finding myself drawn more and more to "extra, powerful reactions" as we saw with Vecna or the Eldritch Lich in favor over legendary actions,) which would probably mean giving them extra movement, but it might work the most elegantly - and costing two legendary actions would be a decent price to make sure you're not spamming this.

Going back to the Ringwraiths, when I first saw the Fellowship of the Ring, the screams they unleashed were very loud in the theater. You could feel how their screeching would fill someone with dread and cause a sort of involuntary shudder. This is, to be fair, very specific to Lord of the Rings (and perhaps very specific to Peter Jackson's films). But perhaps that could just be one way to skin some kind of dread wail effect - if we wanted to make it very scary, we could have it not only do psychic damage but also stun those who fail (if we want it to be a little less powerful, we could make this "fail by 5 or more and you're stunned.) I think stunning, especially for a melee monster (to speak nothing of paralyzing, which would probably be too powerful) is quite strong, so the damage itself of this ability should be only around the same as their regular melee attacks (though with the potential multiplier thanks to it hitting anyone nearby.)

I was going to get into a whole thing about raising the dead, but I think D&D has an unfortunate lack of mid-tier undead monsters that can be a decent threat as henchmen to a high-level undead monster - ideally you'd just use a ton of zombies and skeletons, but I think that unless you are using MCDM's excellent minion rules (they have a zombie minion in the latest free pdf, and a simple chart for scaling these up in level) that tends to just be tedious.

One thing I think is a sort of interesting question is whether a Death Knight counts as corporeal. Often, they're depicted as skeletal or zombie-like, and sometimes still more or less living but with a kind of pale complexion. Tolkien's Ringwraiths, though, were fully ghost-like. The Witch King is described as basically being a pair of floating red dots for eyes in an empty crown, their physical form fully passing over into the unseen world.

Their armor and weapons are physical, though, so the only reason I bring this up is how we're going to handle damage resistances and immunities. Ghosts, Wraiths, and other incorporeal undead in D&D tend to have full immunity to necrotic damage (and poison, but that's basically all undead) and resistance to a most common elemental damage types like acid, cold, fire, lightning, etc. (While few actually have vulnerability to radiant damage, their resistance to nearly everything else kind of effectively makes this true.)

The Monster Manual, interestingly, gives them immunity to necrotic and poison damage, but none of the other resistances (even nonmagical weapons work fine on them.) This feels like a reasonable balance.

As always, when using the DMG to figure out the CR of a monster, we run into the problem that the "Making a Monster" CR chart doesn't actually have any place for ACs of 20 or higher - absurdly, even a CR 30 monster on that chart is shown to have an AC of 19. So we have to kind of eyeball it.

I think my approach will simply to be not to touch the AC, HP, and immunities, and to try to have our new Death Knight put out the same damage as the old one. We'll be making it legendary, but I think the intent is not to account for that in the CR calculation - it's legendary, and thus supposed to be tougher.

Essentially, we're really just swapping out their spellcasting and possibly their Hellfire Orb for some new features.

Like the new spellcasters, we'll likely keep a few utility spells like Dispel Magic, but we won't rely on this for their damage output.

Just attacking with the longsword (one-handed, as they use a shield,) Death Knights put out 27 damage per attack, and get three longsword attacks, for a total of 81 damage per turn. So we'll basically keep that the same and treat that as a baseline for what we should expect them to put out.

Once per day, they get to shoot off a Hellfire Orb, which does an average of 70 damage (half fire, half necrotic) in a Fireball-sized sphere. Generally, when doing AoE stuff, we treat this as if it's hitting two targets, so essentially this is 140 damage. But this is a one-time thing, rather than something we might encounter multiple times.

Unless this is just because I haven't read any Dragonlance novels, the Hellfire Orb feels kind of off-brand. Paladins don't have Fireball. The DK does have the Destructive Wave spell, which is a paladin spell, which does half that (and has friendly-fire protection so they don't roast their ghoulish companions.

But given that we're leaning into the simplifying of stat blocks, here's what I'm going to propose:

We have our regular melee attacks, unchanged.

Then, we give them an AoE option with a relatively small radius centered on themselves, but that they can use every turn in place of their melee attacks, and this is meant to feel a bit like Destructive Wave. Because it's no recharge, we make it on par or slightly less damage when hitting two targets than focusing the longsword on a single foe - this is for when they are truly surrounded and can hit three or more targets. Also, I feel like it should be cold and necrotic rather than fire and necrotic, because I like associating cold magic with undeath (perhaps a nod to Warcraft's Scourge).

Then, we give them a really nasty recharge ability (our stunning dread wail). This might then take the place of a fear aura, as we're getting that effect from this. This is going to be psychic damage.

For legendary actions, it might be a little too powerful to let them make a full strike with just a single legendary action, but I think we'll allow it just because of how legendary this foe should be.

So, I think we give them a single longsword attack for 1 legendary action.

We then take two to give them their mobility thing, which disengages them, frees them of grapples and restraints, and moves them perhaps only 20 feet (rather than a full 30).

And then, I think we give them something a little different that costs 3 legendary actions.

Here's my thought: zombies and skeletons feel worthless against high level players because they are so likely to miss and deal pitiful damage. However, one spell fixes this: Danse Macabre. This adds your spellcasting ability to both their attack and damage rolls, which means your Zombie can be attacking with a +8 to hit and dealing 1d6+6 damage - which makes them an actual threat. (1d6+6 isn't that amazing, but when you have five of them, it adds up.) I think we thus give our DK an aura that buffs undead creatures other than the death knight. We're not really changing their stats, so the DK is only adding 4, but that's enough to make these minions more than a nuisance. So, I think the 3 legendary action thing will essentially be Danse Macabre, but we're going to go back and fold that buff into an aura the death knight projects.

Let's bang out this stat block! (Also, we're doing the full legendary treatment). 

DEATH KNIGHT

Medium Undead, typically Chaotic Evil

Armor: 20 (plate, shield)

Hit Points: 180 (19d8+95)

Speed 30 ft.

STR 20 (+5) DEX 11 (+0) CON 20 (+5) INT 12 (+1) WIS 16 (+3) CHA 18 (+4)

Saving Throws: Dex +6, Wis +9, Cha +10

Damage Immunities: necrotic, poison

Condition Immunities: exhaustion, frightened, poison

Senses: darkvision 120 ft., passive Perception 13

Languages: Abyssal, Common (I might add "any languages they knew in life.")

Challenge 17

Aura of Unholy Command: Unless it is incapacitated, the death knight radiates an aura of unholy will, empowering nearby undead. Other undead creatures of the death knight's choice that are within 60 feet of the death knight add the death knight's charisma modifier (+4) to their attack and damage rolls. The death knight and creatures affected by this aura also have advantage on saving throws against effects that turn undead. A creature can only benefit from one of these auras at a time.

Legendary Resistance (3/day). If the death knight fails a saving throw, it can choose to succeed instead.

Magic Resistance. The death knight has advantage on saving throws against spells and other magical effects.

Actions:

Multiattack. The death knight makes three longsword attacks.

Longsword. Melee Weapon Attack. +11 to hit, reach 5 ft., one target. Hit: 9 (1d8+5) slashing damage, or 10 (1d10+5) slashing damage if used with both hands, plus 18 (4d8) necrotic damage.

Remorseless Chill. A cloud of darkness swirls around the death knight. Each creature of the death knight's choice within ten feet must make a DC 18 Constitution saving throw. On a failure, the creature takes 17 (5d6) cold damage and 17 (5d6) necrotic damage, and their speed is reduced by 10 feet until the start of the death knight's next turn. On a successful save, they take half this damage and their speed is unaffected.

Dreadful Wail. (Recharge 5-6): The death knight unleashes an ear-splitting howl, assaulting their foes with agonized terror. Each creature within 60 feet of the death knight that is not undead and can hear it must make a DC 18 Wisdom saving throw. On a failure, the creature takes 65 (10d12) psychic damage and is frightened of the death knight for 1 minute. If the creature fails this saving throw by 5 or more, the creature is stunned for 1 minute as well. A creature can repeat this saving throw at the end of each of their turns, ending both conditions on a success.

Reactions:

Parry. The death knight adds 6 to its AC against one melee attack that would hit it. To do so, the death knight must see the attacker and be wielding a melee weapon.

Legendary Actions:

The death knight can take 3 legendary actions, choosing from the options below. Only one legendary action can be used at a time, and only at the end of another creature's turn. The death knight regains spent legendary actions at the start of its turn.

Longsword. The death knight makes a longsword attack.

Wraith Walk (Costs 2 actions). The death knight ends the grappled and restrained conditions on itself, if it is affected by them, and moves 20 feet in any direction. This movement does not provoke opportunity attacks.

Marshall Undead Forces (Costs 3 actions). The death knight magically conjures five undead creatures that each use the zombie or skeleton stat block. These creatures are friendly to the death knight and obey its commands. They share the death knight's initiative, but act immediately after its turn.

Class Groups: Speculating on Mages

 Of the four class groups - a concept introduced in the "Expert Classes" Unearthed Arcana playtest document for One D&D (Expert being the group that includes Rogues, Bards, Rangers, and while not included in a revised form, Artificers) - Mage is the one that I think is the least controversial.

Before I got into D&D, I'd never even thought to draw a distinction between a Wizard and a Sorcerer. Fantasy fiction throws these terms around with zero consistency. In Marvel Comics and the MCU, the "Sorcerer Supreme" is someone who has used their great intellect to study and master the use of magic - which is precisely what defines a wizard in D&D. Wizards in Lord of the Rings aren't even mundane people - they're basically a special kind of angel that is sent to the mortal world in the form of an old man. Warlock often comes with a more sinister connotation, but, for example, Mages and Warlocks in World of Warcraft (Mages being basically the Wizard equivalent) are both scholars of magic - it's just that Warlocks use scary Fel magic (the magic of demons) while Mages use Arcane magic (associated more with the gods-as-engineers, the Titans).

But these three classes all fit together quite nicely as the ones that can perform "classical magic." All three use Arcane magic, which is now a defined and rule-based category. The Bard also uses this type of magic, but they cast spells with musical instruments, while all three of the Mages typically use staffs, wands, or grand gesticulation while shouting words of power like "abracadabra" or "alakazam."

In game terms, one thing that Arcane magic never seems capable of is healing - the exception being necromancy spells like Life Transference or Vampiric Touch, where you can only heal by drawing the life force from something else. You don't pick these classes to be a healer (except maybe a Divine Soul sorcerer). These are the classes that either pump out magical damage, or provide numerous useful utilities. In Final Fantasy terms, they're "black mages" as contrasted with "white mages" who are more like your Clerics.

We've seen with the Expert classes that the new approach to a class' access to spells involves using the Arcane, Divine, or Primal spell lists, and then possibly limiting a class to certain schools of those lists to make their "class list." Additionally, the Bard and Ranger were changed to let them swap out spells every long rest - preparing them in a manner similar to a Cleric, Druid, or Paladin.

It remains to be seen if this approach is a universal one, but I wonder how it would be implemented in the case of the Mages.

The Divine and Primal spell lists have a single half caster and a single full caster each. As such, I have to imagine that the full casters - the Cleric and Druid - will have unfettered access to their whole list.

With Arcane casters, though, all three Mages and the Bard are full casters (Warlocks are weird casters, but they do get up to 9th level spells). Thus, like the Bard, I could imagine that the restriction on spell schools could be used to distinguish their access to spells.

That said, I also think that there's likely to be less of a restriction to those spells for any one of the three. Bards are designed not to really be spellcasting damage dealers (outside of options like Magical Secrets) and are instead focused around enhancing allies and sometimes using weapons. But all three Mages can can be built to deal a great deal of magical damage.

The Sorcerer has always had a very similar spell list to the Wizard, but tends to have fewer options. In the current version, Sorcerers only learn a handful of spells, and are pushed to lean more into a combat-heavy role where they shoot off fireballs and such. One thing they lack that Wizards have in abundance are summoning spells - they got none of the "Summon X" from Tasha's, though they did get Summon Draconic Spirit in Fizban's, likely because Draconic Bloodline is one of the PHB subclasses. Still, they tend not to get summoning spells. Does that then mean that they might have Conjuration as their restricted spell school (if not more than one?) The problem here would be that this would also deny them various mobility spells like Misty Step.

By contrast, Warlocks get tons of summoning spells - nearly all of the ones that Wizards got in Tasha's, for example. This makes sense, given the way that Warlock gameplay really encourages high-value concentration spells that will last a while so that you can spend most turns just hitting things with eldritch blast. Speaking of which: Eldritch Blast is nowhere to be seen on the Arcane spell list. Given how central it is to how Warlocks work (and have since 3rd edition) I think that the spell is going to be made a class feature. But that also creates an interesting possibility: Warlocks, outside of certain subclasses, don't get big explodey evocation spells like Fireball or Lightning Bolt. Normally, they'd have to keep evocation as a school because that's what Eldritch Blast is. But if Eldritch Blast is not even a spell anymore, then you don't need to worry about it, and I think that Warlocks might not get Evocation spells.

Finally, Wizards. Wizards will, like I speculate that Clerics and Druids will with their respective spell lists, get the entire Arcane spell list. Not only are there subclasses for each school of magic, but Wizards have always had the most extensive spell list and are all about collecting and learning as much as they can.

The question I then have is: what of spellbooks?

In current 5E D&D, Artificers, Clerics, Druids, and Paladins can prepare any spell on their class list after a long rest. Bards, Rangers, Sorcerers, and Warlocks just learn spells when they level up and are stuck with them. Wizards, though, are similar to both. You don't have every Wizard spell, but you do get to prepare them each day, "learning" more spells than you can prepare but storing them in your spellbook - creating a mini game (and goldsink) for wizard players as they dream of having universal access to their list.

But if Sorcerers and Warlocks go the way of Bards and Rangers, what does that mean for Wizards' spellbooks? Kept as is, it would arguably be more of a penalty than a benefit. But if Wizards also got to prepare any Arcane spell they could cast each day, does that mean the spellbook as a thing goes away?

One thing that I think is very controversial (frankly, I think it's unpopular and unlikely to stay) is the idea that classes can prepare not just a number of spells equal to their spell slots, but that they must prepare spells of each level equal to the spell slots of those levels that they have: for example, your level 3 Bard, who has four 1st level spell slots and two 2nd level spell slots, must prepare four 1st level and two 2nd level spells. This is true of the Ranger as well (though of course at a slower rate as a half-caster) but this is quite different than the current system, where prepared-spell casters tend to get to prepare any spells they can cast of any level they can cast, and the number of spells they can prepare is equal to their spellcasting ability modifier and their class level (or half their class level rounded down for Artificers and Paladins). Thus, if your level 3 Wizard right now has a +3 to Intelligence, you can prepare six spells, but any of them can be 1st or 2nd level (I once again reiterate that I really wish they'd call them "spell ranks" to lessen the confusion of what we mean by "level.")

Broadly speaking, the reason I think this isn't such a good idea is that higher-level players might only use their 1st level spell slots for a handful of spells. I'd never recommend not preparing any 1st level spells (except maybe on a Paladin) but holding onto just something like Shield or Absorb Elements is not a crazy way to play, freeing up more options at the higher spell levels.

Now, for a Wizard, part of their appeal is having a ton of options for spells, and are sort of the ultimate utility spellcaster (on top of having the cool damage spells as well). I could, thus, imagine that a Wizard's spellbook might act instead as a sort of collectable "always prepared" repository. For collecting these spells, you get to basically have more spells prepared than other classes. Thus, like seemingly all other classes, you're getting full access to your spell list, but you still have that leg up over other Arcane casters (and actually all other spellcasters).

I don't love this solution, but it's what I could think of.

I somehow doubt that we're going to have all three of these classes get a shared named mechanic like Expertise, Fighting Style (something that has been signaled for Warriors - despite only one of those classes having them in 2014) and my theory of making "wild shape charges" into "Channel Nature," as the Druid form of Channel Divinity. These three classes feel sufficiently tied together already thematically that I think we won't need much to reinforce that.

Class Groups: Speculating on Priests

 The first of four class design UAs for One D&D introduced the idea of class groups, sorting the original 12 classes from the 2014 Player's Handbook into four categories - categories that will presumably also cover any other classes they add to the game moving forward (the Artificer, for example, is an Expert). The idea was to group thematically similar classes and then allow for some features such as feats or possibly magic items to be categorized by class group. The groups are Warrior (Barbarian, Fighter, Monk,) Priest (Cleric, Druid, Paladin,) Expert (Bard, Ranger, Rogue,) and Mage (Sorcerer, Warlock, Wizard).

It appears that the groups will share some mechanic that ties them together. Bards and Rogues have always had the Expertise feature, and Rangers in the new design also get Expertise (expanding upon the Tasha's revised Ranger's version of it to simply bring it in line with the other classes).

Conceptually, the groups could potentially help players build a balanced party, making sure they have one of each group. In theory.

I wanted to start with Priests because I think this is going to be a category where the included classes are a bit odd.

Though it was never a term in the official rules, players have often referred to "martial" classes, sometimes contrasting them with "casters." These weren't perfect categories - it wasn't clear if the Rogue, being a class that used weapons to fight, was one, or if, because it lacked the Extra Attack feature, it was not.

Still, I think that the new design for Rangers makes its role and strengths similar enough to the Rogue and Bard that I can understand why it is grouped with them. The Ranger bleeds a little into the Warrior category, reflected in getting access to Fighting Style feats.

But I wonder if Paladins will fit in as well with Priests.

The shared mechanic for the classes in the Priest category I think could easily be some variation on Channel Divinity. Already both Paladins and Clerics have this feature. Druids don't, but recent subclasses have started treating their Wild Shape feature as an ersatz resource - the three subclasses for Druids in Tasha's all have alternate uses for Wild Shape "charges," and so it might make more sense moving forward to have Druids use a "Channel Nature" feature that works like Channel Divinity (coming back on a short rest, just like Wild Shape does) and make Wild Shape one of the options to use with Channel Nature.

So, that's easily solved, with all three Priests "channeling" as their group mechanic.

However, I'm less convinced about the ability for all three Priests to fill the expected role in a group.

Clerics are D&D's standard healers. Druids, though, are also quite capable healers, even if they might lag a little behind with fewer healing spells than Clerics (though some that Clerics don't get.)

But the group role that a Paladin plays is much more similar to a Barbarian or melee Fighter. They are arguably the best front-line tank (thanks to the boosted saving throws on top of heavy armor). Paladins do have some built-in healing with Lay on Hands, but as a half-caster, they don't get any resurrection magic until level 9, and they'll never be able to pump out the massive healing that a Cleric or Druid can at higher levels.

So, are we then going to see the Paladin redesigned to function more as a healer?

I don't know for certain. The three Experts make a lot of sense sitting in that category, but they do go about their roles in very different ways - especially the Bard, who is not designed to put out damage like the Rogue or Ranger (in fact, I think the Bard is likely a more powerful healer with this new design than it was previously). Still, it makes sense.

Healers in D&D don't work like they do in something like World of Warcraft. A WoW healer is basically spending every fight doing little other than casting heals (unless the fight is going particularly well). And ultimately, mitigating damage is just as powerful as healing - damage reduced is as good as HP regained.

So, I wonder they are going to emphasize a Paladin's ability to reduce a party's incoming damage. Could that be enough to make a group that is, say, a Paladin, Monk, Warlock, and Rogue, not lament the lack of a dedicated healer healer?

The thing is, I personally love the Paladin as its is currently designed. It's one of the most satisfying classes I've played in D&D. So, I'm hesitant for it to undergo any huge changes. Getting their subclass capstones at level 14 will be a rather dramatic change - but at least more players are likely to actually use their "Ult." (I'm also hoping that they can be activated with a bonus action and repeated using a spell slot).

Currently, in my Wildemount campaign (the only game I'm regularly getting to play as a player) our group is two paladins, a fighter, and two wizards. While we thus have, as you can see, quite limited healing capabilities, both paladins have the interception fighting style, which honestly is probably saving us more HP than we would be getting from a Cleric who could heal us (we only just hit level 5). This, of course, is something that Fighters could use as well.

And, to be fair, Paladins are the only class (as opposed to subclass) that automatically have a built-in healing mechanism (other than the new version of Bards). You could build a Cleric with no healing whatsoever, but any Paladin is going to have it as a baseline option. Maybe that's enough to make a Paladin "priest-like."

What I think might be interesting to see is what Epic Boons are shared between Warriors and Priests. Right now, Experts share a fair number of them (and we've only seen the Epic Boons that Experts can pick up.)

Regarding Druids, I do hope that we're going to see Druids taken more seriously as fully-capable healers. They're already close to that point, but Clerics are built just a little better for it, especially regarding high-level spells like Power Word Heal or Mass Heal.

Lore-wise, I think it'll be kind of an interesting challenge to square Druids being priests, and delving into what it means, precisely, to be a priest. Clerics and Paladins channel Divine magic (now a rules-meaningful term,) which means the magic of the gods and the outer planes, which embody abstract principles and philosophies (a philosophy cleric or paladin can still channel divine magic because their commitment to, for example, a certain conception of duty and selfless valor to further perfect their souls embodies the ethos of Mount Celestia, even if they have no personal connection to a deity that inhabits that plane.) But Druids are tied instead to the Inner Planes, the raw material and "stuff" of existence. Is that spiritually fulfilling in the same way?

Also, if magic items are going to be tied to class groups, will paladins be able to use a lot of spellcasting items like staves?

There are a lot of pieces that we have yet to get a good look at, so this is all deeply speculative.

Should Artificers Not Have Been Spellcasters?

 So, a friend of mine recently tweeted (this is the usual DM of our Sunday games in which I have my Armorer (well, eventually) Artificer) in response to a prompt about D&D classes that responders dislike, and named Artificers, saying that the concept is cool but she does not like the execution.

Now, full disclosure, I have not asked her why she thought that, but it prompted some thoughts of my own.

I've been on record here that I adore the Artificer class, and while I haven't had a chance to play mine very much or at the levels where I think you start to get a real feel for it, on paper it seems awesome. (I also have an Artillerist Artificer in my Ravnica game, so I've been able to vicariously experience it that way).

But I was thinking a bit about the execution of the Artificer, and whether it lives up to the class fantasy, and I think spellcasting is potentially the real sticking point here (not the only one, but we'll get to the other in a bit).

The vibe of an artificer is typically portrayed as being a little Steampunk-y (or other pre-modern punk genres like Clockpunk, Stonepunk, or what-have-you). In a world with medieval knights and wizards, you're the one who is using anachronistically advanced engineering to give yourself an edge. This is particularly well-expressed with things like the Battle Smith's Steel Defender or the Artillerist's Eldritch Cannons. That sense of anachronism (which is admittedly less unique in my D&D campaigns, which embrace a lot of so-called anachronism - though remember that a fantasy world doesn't have the same history as our own, so there's no reason why, for example, ethnic diversity and modern ideas about pluralism couldn't thrive in a technologically medieval world) is what people tend to think of when they think of Artificers, and I think is also why the class might rub purists the wrong way (this is definitely not the source of my DM's objections, who once ran a combat encounter in an ilithid tiki bar hidden in Skullport).

But the class is actually a broader concept than that - the Alchemist subclass is actually a perfect match for a very medieval character archetype (and also great for a Gothic one if you're doing something in Ravenloft, especially a place like Barovia).

I think the crux of the issue here is that the Artificer's spellcasting is meant to represent something that is not quite the same as other classes' spellcasting. The requirement to use artisan's tools (or infused items) to cast even spells that don't have a material component is meant to demonstrate that the Artificer is not casting spells in the way that a Wizard, Druid, or Sorcerer would. And, arguably, they're not really casting spells - they're creating spell-like effects with the devices that they've created.

Now, simply giving them the Spellcasting feature like most of the classes in the game have makes them play a lot better with others. A Four Elements Monk, for example, uses an entirely different system, spending ki points to cast spells or produce spell-like effects, and that means that, for example, multiclassing is incompatible.

Arguably, Warlocks' Pact Magic being its own separate system for spellcasting is something that makes their class unique.

But this approach to the Artificer has created some odd consequences. One example is that, while all Artificers gain proficiency in firearms (technically optional, but if your DM has a world with firearms and doesn't let your artificer have proficiency with them, they better have a damned good reason) only one of the four subclasses (of a likely four to ever exist) will actually use them as a primary weapon. Artillerists and Alchemists rely on cantrips for their meat-and-potatoes action, while Armorers only get to use their Intelligence to attack if they're using the built-in weapons in their suit, leaving Battle Smiths the only subclass that has a reason to make a firearm their primary means of fighting monsters.

I actually think that there might have been a better way to do this: Battle Smiths get to use Intelligence to use attack with any magical weapon (which they can easily make any weapon thanks to Artificer Infusions.) I think maybe this should have been a class trait.

Because hey, isn't a weapon just a type of tool, ultimately? I mean, it's literally a tool that allows you to more easily inflict violence, just as a screwdriver more easily allows you to turn screws.

So, even if it looks like half-casters in general are getting broader access to cantrips, I actually think that Artillerists and Alchemists should have been designed to use weapons as well. And what's great is that you wouldn't have to change their level 5 features by much.

The Artillerist adds a d8 to one damage roll of spells they cast. We could just add that to ranged weapons as well. Perhaps at higher levels, more dice could be added to make up for the lack of cantrip-scaling. (If you're using Firebolt currently, which goes from 1d10 (5.5) to 2d10+1d8 (15.5) to 3d10+1d8 (21) to 4d10+1d8 (26.5), we could swap you to, say, a Heavy Crossbow, which could similarly go from 1d10+3ish (8.5) to 1d10+1d8+4 (14) to 1d10+2d8+5 (19.5) to 1d10+3d8+5 (24) - and don't forget that thanks to magical weapons, we're actually probably adding a point or two to the damage, which makes this almost identical). Something similar could be applied to weapons (maybe limited to ranged) wielded by Alchemists (obviously the scaling is different, as Alchemists add their Intelligence modifier, which they'd be doing already to their weapons, so we might have to come up with a different mechanic).

Now, I'll admit that things get a lot more complex when we get past damage cantrips. Spells are a major way that D&D introduces complexity to a player options without bogging down the individual class design. The Artificer wants to have tons of tricks they can pull to help out the party, and the best way to represent that without making an Artificer chapter that is fifty pages long is to simply make those tricks spells.

Artificer Infusions, arguably, act a bit like this. I could maybe imagine a version of the Artificer that simply leans much harder into infusions to replace spellcasting, but that seems really unwieldy, and would likely require far more unique artificer infusions, rather than simply covering things with the "replicate magical item" infusion.

Before we move on to the second (of two planned) issues, we can go a little more radical:

I've tended to flavor an Artificer's spell slots as taking the form of energy stored in some energy capacitor within their equipment. They have some sort of power-pack in their armor or carried on them, or an alchemist might have some "broad-use quintessence" that they have to pour into each vial as they cast a spell, which they then have to brew more of over the course of a long rest. It's pure flavor, of course, but it reinforces the idea that their spells are being cast through their equipment, rather than drawing upon some internal, direct connection to the arcane weave.

In practice, this is pure flavor, and practicalities of making this work in-game could get dicey - for example, what if my Artificer creates a second power-pack - does that mean that in the middle of the day, I could just refresh all my spell slots by swapping them out?

But I do think that this could maybe be reflected mechanically? One thing I've always been tempted to play with is Spell Points, an optional rule in the DMG. Here, rather than Spell Slots of particular levels, you simply have a pool of Spell Points equal to the combined levels of the spell slots that you'd have. You can then use a number of spell points equal to the level of a spell you want to cast (spending more if you're upcasting) to produce the spell. It's basically like most "mana" systems in other RPGs.

The consequences of this system are interesting - a player can cast a massive number of 1st-level spells if that's all they need over the course of a game. Conversely, a high-level spellcaster could cast several 9th level spells per day at the expense of being able to cast nearly as many lower-level spells. It's 100% a player buff, as it creates these options, but if you played exactly as if you had traditional spell slots, you wouldn't notice any difference.

But perhaps, especially as a half-caster, this could make the Artificer feel different.

Again, though, we have the "stepping on Warlocks' toes" issue (notably, the Spell Point optional rule does not apply to Pact Magic) but it also, again, would Artificers not play so well with multiclassing.

To reiterate: this was not the change that my DM suggested, just one that I'm speculating on. I think I really like the idea of letting every Artificer use Intelligence with weapons, but otherwise wouldn't rid them of spellcasting in general.

Now, the other issue is one that I think is a bit fraught, and that is crafting.

Artificers are the class built most to craft magic items. But item crafting, and specifically magic item crafting (which is the most impactful version) is a system that isn't very well spelled-out. For one thing, it can be trivially easy in some campaigns and impossible in others. In my old Sunday campaign, which ran for about three years, and took us from level 3 to level 12, I don't think we ever had a single day of downtime, instead sending us hopping from adventure to adventure. So even though my Eldritch Knight Fighter, possessing the Arcana skill, in theory could create magic items, I'd never have the time to do so. And the rules surrounding even crafting mundane items break down as expense crawls higher. I believe it's one workweek for every 50 gold the item is worth. Crafting a Longbow over a week? I can believe that. But if Split Armor can be made in four weeks, why does it take 30 weeks to make a suit of plate? (A quick google search said that a blacksmith in the middle ages could make a suit of plate armor in 20 days - a tenth the time.)

Now, Artificer Infusions are described in the class chapter as being "prototypes" for magic items that the Artificer intends to eventually produce for real, permanently. Here, game mechanics and flavor clash. I think it's perfectly reasonably as a game mechanic to limit the number of bespoke magic items the artificer can just have after a long rest, and picking infusions and figuring out which ones you want active at any given time is a big part of the strategy of playing an artificer (like the Warlock, I think it's a complex build/simple play class). But in theory, if an Artificer can make permanent versions of their infused items, they'd free up more and more infusion "slots" to do more things, and over time the Artificer would be a crazy arsenal of insane magic gear.

Granted, Infusions become a little less exciting when you're in a magic-item-heavy campaign. (My Ravnica game has showered the party with magic items, to the chagrin of the Artificer, and I can give them awesome weapons only for them to lament that they have no use for them, or they're full up on attunement slots).

Unless I'm pleasantly wrong, the Artificer as an object of ongoing design is basically in the rear view mirror. I'm hoping we at least get a document showing how to update the class for One D&D. So relitigating its design is probably moot. But as someone who loves this class, I thought it might be interesting to reexamine it and see whether some patches might have fixed up its cracks.

Malenia Down on a 3rd Character

 So, I got my Moonveil/Cold Uchigatana Samurai character to and now through the whole Haligtree part of Elden Ring, right up to Malenia, the deservedly-considered hardest boss of the game. Realizing I had caught up on that with my Arcane-focused Dragon incantation-based character, I switched over to him. But then, just trying to clear a dungeon in the Mountaintop of the Giants (I want to say it's a heroes' grave, but the only one without those bastard chariot constructs) I realized how frustrating I had found that build.

So, that character got respecced (I think he's the character I have the fewest Larval Tears left on - hoping that if we get some DLC, we'll get a whole bunch more) to use Rivers of Blood. This build focuses almost entirely on the katana Rivers of Blood's Corpse Piler weapon art, which has you slash forward in a 3-part combo in a relatively short but wide arc, dealing I believe fire damage (and maybe slashing damage) and building up bleed on targets hit by it.

Now, this being an earlier character, I killed Mohg before I got the invasion that gives the White Mask (I think... I should double check whether I just killed the one invader,) which gives a damage boost when something nearby has the blood loss effect go off. However, I do have the talisman, Lord of Blood's Exultation, which does the same. As usual, I've cribbed this build from Fextralife, a really definitive wiki for the game (and other FromSoft Soulsborne games).

And so, today, after about a half-hour of attempts (each of which was like 3 minutes - so I guess ten or so tries?) I took down Malenia. The key here was just burning her as quickly as possible, using a Mimic Tear to double my bleed build up.

Two things make Malenia so difficult. The first is that her healing can set you back significantly. This incentivizes pouring out damage as quickly as possible. The other is her Waterfowl Dance, which is insanely hard to dodge and will basically automatically kill you given the rapid damage it puts out.

In fact, Waterfowl Dance also pushes you to pour on damage as quickly as possible, as you want to kill her before she decides to use the ability. I can dodge the initial blow (which I think does more damage) about one in four times, so I'm much happier if I can get her down before she can do it. The Mimic Tear can actually tank this once or twice, so if you're lucky, she might target the Tear - she'll heal up a bit, but you aren't dead.

The good news is that Malenia doesn't have the best poise, so with that damage-pouring, you can sometimes interrupt her attacks or even get a critical on her.

And it's for that reason that this feels almost like the first "legitimate" kill I've gotten of three.

Ok, fair, the first time was pretty legitimate. I was on my Intelligence-based spellcaster (I later respecced him to use the Darkmoon Greatsword, but he's still got like 70 or 80 Int) and just chipped away at her with Stars of Ruin. What made this feel "cheap" was that on the second phase, she used the attack she always starts phase 2 off with a second time - an attack that is relatively easy to dodge, but forces melee characters to stay away from her for a good 5 seconds or so while you wait for her Rot-flower to dissipate. But as a ranged caster, I could just pummel her with Stars of Ruins from a safe distance for that full time with impunity.

The second time, I was playing my Strength/Faith dual greatsword build with Blasphemous Blade. Here, the moment I pushed her into phase 2, I staggered her and started a critical hit, but the cutscene began to play. The game clearly knew that I was supposed to be critting her at the moment, and somehow seemed to understand that her health should be very low at that point, so when the cutscene ended, I finished the critical hit animation while Malenia was stunned mid-air and dropped before making her usual Rot-Bloom-Dive attack... with 1 HP. I was able to close distance on her quickly and get off a hit, and got credit for the kill.

So, this third time, being on a melee (or at least short-range) character, I didn't get to take potshots (I did have a fire incantation that I tried using on earlier attempts, but I decided it was better to just buff with Flame, Give Me Strength when I got those moments of calm, or to pop a flask) when she did her rot-bloom dive, and so I felt as if I was really just bringing my build's basics to the fight.

With Malenia down, I figured that I was pretty sure I'd gotten Corhyn/Goldmask's quest far enough and decided to trigger the final phase, and I wound up taking Maliketh down in a single attempt (bleed works quite well on him).