Talk:Living Weapon, Variant (5e Class)

Hello this is the creator here YokaiShadow! This class is my baby and my first real bit of inspiration for DND! I would like to know what you think of it and if you have any questions about it, me, or anything else you can come up with! I'm usually pretty busy with work but I do try to keep an eye on this page! So I'll answer anything or address anything I possibly can here or you can leave me something on my user page since there's no way to private message a user on here! I'm not great with grammer and spelling(in some cases) so please if you see something specific that needs attention point it out to me and I'll try to get to it in a timely manner, but again PLEASE be specific there is a lot of text on the page and I'd prefer it if I didn't have to search through the entire thing for an uncapitalized "i" or something. Sincerely,--YokaiShadow 07:05, 21 June 2019 (MDT)

___________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

I've put a stub message on the page and I'll do my best to go into detail. There is a lot so I will incrementally add issues to a list below.Marasmusine (talk) 09:32, 18 July 2019 (MDT)

• I believe the player is supposed to make a choice at 1st level, between "air", "land" and "water", but this isn't made explicit.
• Terminology: Armored Defense should read (for example) "Your Armor Class is equal to 10 + your proficiency modifier + either your Intelligence or Dexterity modifier"
• Typo: "Archetype", not "ArcheType" (same for any other instances of camelCase)
• Air Panzer. I'm not sure exactly what this does. Is this a piece of equipment? Does it make ranged weapon attacks? Is this three attacks, or do you add your dexterity three times? Do you add your dexterity or your Dexterity modifier? What does "Range of 5ft minimum to 20ft max." mean? Are you aware of the Burst Fire rule in the DMG?
• Land Panzer. Again, is this a ranged weapon attack? Terminology needs improving, for example: "Also on a hit, the target must make a Dexterity saving throw. The DC is 8 + your proficiency bonus + your Strength modifier. On a failed save, the target is pushed 5 feet away from you and knocked prone".

• Forced movement and knockdown is usually a Strength saving throw, not Dexterity.
• Force damage is "pure magical damage". It is not "concussive" or "pushing" damage. Why wouldn't an "artillery slug" deal piercing damage?

• It is not clear what the "rounds" mean. Yes, conceptually it is how many times the weapon can attack. But are you carrying these around with you? How much do they weigh? Do they materialize? Do I need to load the weapon with them?
• Ammo Manufacturing.

• What is the "weight limit"? How is this feature different from simply using the crafting downtime? What are the material costs?

• Extra attack is not worded correctly, nor would you get a second extra attack at 7th level.
• Overdrive is a reaction, but no trigger is given. Don't use the term "per long rest", try instead "You can use this feature twice. When you finish a long rest, you regain your uses of overdrive."
• If you've got a number of different features that can be used X times between rests, you might consider a unified resource (such as with Ki points or channel divinity)
• Typo: About 5 different instances of "you're" instead of "your".
• Sonic Boom. Not clear what defines "anyone in the path". Is it creatures you move adjacent to? Is the damage automatic, or is a saving throw or attack roll involved? Does this feature require an action? How does it affect the normal movement you have in your turn?

______________________________________________________________________________

Thank you for your input. I see what you're talking about and thank you for pointing out these unclear area's. I will do my best to fix them in due time.--YokaiShadow 02:51, 9 August 2019 (MDT) ________________________________________________________________________________

Okay so I'm going to address each change I've done according to the list Maramusine left me. On said note, I thank you for the way you formatted it and were specific. It really helped me see things from a different perspective and notice how unclear a lot of it was. I think I have addressed all of the issues mentioned to a satisfactory degree.

• I believe the player is supposed to make a choice at 1st level, between "air", "land" and "water", but this isn't made explicit.

I went back, and added information that was missing. It was actually based on the archetype chosen, so multiple edits were made to make not only that, but the entire class more clear cut.

• Typo: "Archetype", not "ArcheType" (same for any other instances of camelCase)

I was unaware, grammer is not my strong suit but it has been fixed.

• Air Panzer. I'm not sure exactly what this does. Is this a piece of equipment? Does it make ranged weapon attacks? Is this three attacks, or do you add your dexterity three times? Do you add your dexterity or your Dexterity modifier? What does "Range of 5ft minimum to 20ft max." mean? Are you aware of the Burst Fire rule in the DMG?

Okay this one was a bit harder, but i have done what I needed to do. Now to answer each specific question.

Q: Is this a piece of equipment?

A: I added in more information in a couple of areas. To address this and potential other issues as the correct answer to this is both 'yes' and 'no' at the same time.

Q: Does it make ranged weapon attacks?

A: Yes, and I specified that while making changes. I cant believe I actually forgot to add that.

Q: Is this three attacks, or do you add your dexterity three times?

A: I am so sorry about this one. Somehow some information that was specifying this exact thing got omitted and run together. I have redone this and made it clear. It was supposed to be rolled as three attacks.

Q: Do you add your dexterity or your Dexterity modifier?

A: It's clearly talking about an attack? So it's always the modifier when making attacks? Or am I missing something?

Q: What does "Range of 5ft minimum to 20ft max." mean?

A: I fixed this to be more inline with DND guide lines. It was essentially the minimum and maximum effective distance's. This is my fault for not thats it's essentially a specialized ranged weapon and follows most ranged weapons rules. Common sense can be applied to the fact it's a gun(of sorts) and doesnt really get disadvantage at close range.

Q: Are you aware of the Burst Fire rule in the DMG?

A: I was not, and what i have looked up so far referring to it confuses me. Perhaps you have a source that I can reference that I can actually understand and I can consider using that. Still "burst fire" and "automatic fire" is very different in my book, so I'm actually wondering if I can use that for this.

• Land Panzer. Again, is this a ranged weapon attack? Terminology needs improving, for example: "Also on a hit, the target must make a Dexterity saving throw. The DC is 8 + your proficiency bonus + your Strength modifier. On a failed save, the target is pushed 5 feet away from you and knocked prone".

• Forced movement and knockdown is usually a Strength saving throw, not Dexterity.
• Force damage is "pure magical damage". It is not "concussive" or "pushing" damage. Why wouldn't an "artillery slug" deal piercing damage?

Okay so something else to cover in depth. Since I feel it necessary for all to understand my solutions to this fully.

Q: Again, is this a ranged weapon attack? Terminology needs improving, for example: "Also on a hit, the target must make a Dexterity saving throw. The DC is 8 + your proficiency bonus + your Strength modifier. On a failed save, the target is pushed 5 feet away from you and knocked prone".

A: I went back and fixed this by adjusting grammar and adding info.

• Forced movement and knockdown is usually a Strength saving throw, not Dexterity.

This is true. However in DND every example I've seen doing what your talking about has something to do with a physical melee based attack, or is using something you can physically push back against. Logically thinking whats causing the movement and knockdown is the force from the shot hitting and/or explosion from the ammo. Thinking logically, you can no more push against an inanimate force such as this than a caterpillar can eat a rock. I would imagine you would have to be more dexterous to be able to resist that. Therefore I do not see any reason to change this.

• Force damage is "pure magical damage". It is not "concussive" or "pushing" damage. Why wouldn't an "artillery slug" deal piercing damage?

Thank you or pointing this out. I used "Force" because I did feel "Thunder" fit since it's more than just sound, but an actual concussive force. That same air pressure you feel when something explodes. I was unsure how to classify this type of damage, and had used force cause it just felt more right at the time. I changed it to thunder but if anyone has a better way to classify that type of damage I would love it. As far as the piercing, I was trying to make them all a bit different, and not have a bunch of cookie cutter damage. cause if you think about it, technically all of these should piercing or piercing and fire but that would be boring.

• Ammo Manufacturing.

• What is the "weight limit"? How is this feature different from simply using the crafting downtime? What are the material costs?

I went back and added in this information in great detail(I think, please let me know if I'm overlooking something.) The weight limit is the characters carrying capacity. Gun ammo, or guns are not normal parts of your typical DND. So bullets and such would a mystery to something like your common dwarf from something like the yawning portal.(Unrelated but Sunless Citadel was my favorite. Vampire tree! RAWR!) So your character coming to understand these, especially this special type is important, it was also the best way I could think of to make sense of future abilities linked to it. I did however add to it, to make it more special. I also added material types and how much is needed. I took into the account material loss while making them. Like having to shave down the shapes and things like that.

• Extra attack is not worded correctly, nor would you get a second extra attack at 7th level.

After using this and testing it out. It is working as intended. I would rename it, but that would be redundant. This will remain as is.

• Overdrive is a reaction, but no trigger is given. Don't use the term "per long rest", try instead "You can use this feature twice. When you finish a long rest, you regain your uses of overdrive."

I redid this, adding in the specific trigger as it was supposed to be used.

• If you've got a number of different features that can be used X times between rests, you might consider a unified resource (such as with Ki points or channel divinity)

I have always hated this type of system from the time i started DND with a friend. I have banned all uses of characters that use such mechanics from my campaigns and refuse to use such a system. Even the simple to use Monk class I have banned just out of principal.

• Typo: About 5 different instances of "you're" instead of "your".

I didn't even realize I did that. I have fixed this issue. Guess I shouldn't have done this at 7am after a nightshift.

• Sonic Boom. Not clear what defines "anyone in the path". Is it creatures you move adjacent to? Is the damage automatic, or is a saving throw or attack roll involved? Does this feature require an action? How does it affect the normal movement you have in your turn?

I have added information to try and clarify this as well as a few other details. --YokaiShadow 16:48, 29 August 2019 (MDT)

A note from the creator

Thank you for viewing this page and considering useing it! Honestly it is my first time making one of these fully fleshed out. However i feel the need to point out that when making this, it was designed for use in a campaign with only 3 players including me as the DM. I am still pretty inexperienced both as a player and a DM but i am getting better with time! That said, you may need to make adjustments for your own campaign and if i see variants floating around out there than that would be awesome for me! Once again thank you all for viewing the page.

Also I should note: i edited out my "short hand" that was complained about, though i feel it was unneeded so long as its understood. I wish to abide by as many rules as I can! I have seen complaints on the "time duration" being 5 minutes and odd. I did say that there may need to be adjustments for individual campaigns but as it was made it was meant to function in a non-standard and unconvientional way as the campaign(which is still ongoing ^_^) is non-standard and unconventional as well. So please make appropriate adjustments when using in your own campaign and remember everyone it's just a game so have fun! DND is all about hanging with friends and having fun adventures in your own way so dont be afraid to break a few rules to spice things up for everyone! —The preceding unsigned comment was added by YokaiShadow (talk • contribs) . Please sign your posts.

I've moved this message from the mainspace page (where it was in violation of our attribution policy) to this talk page, rather than outright deleting it. — Geodude (talk | contribs | email)‎‎ . . 13:42, 7 March 2021 (MST)

I mean, even if tweaks every campaign are needed, that doesn't handwave any inherent balance issues. I haven't looked closely at the class but the unarmored defense immediately jumps out since it could proficiency bonus of all things, which scales automatically unlike an ability score. IF this was something meant to be unbalanced for your own campaign, maybe consider having it as a user page.--Yanied (talk) 13:49, 7 March 2021 (MST)

______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

Thank you for the suggestion Yanied. I will do so now, as it seems my page has been completely violated and changed from how its supposed work by Lavie. I will no longer make edits to this page or the class page. I will not be disrespectful here as much as I'd like to right now so please do not take my following comments out of context as I simply wish to express my own displeasure and personal feelings. That said Lavie if you read this, know that under the current way you have made it, goes completely against the original theme and idea I had for making it the way I did and I feel completely disrespected since you destroyed my core idea for how this should work with each subclass specializing in different ways of attacking and having specific abilities that only that particular class could manifest in. I am at least glad this site keeps history logs of things so I could pull up my unedited content. I know it was not perfect but to be so completely changed like it was, I dont even recognize it as my creation anymore. This is not my baby that I created. It no longer even resembles what I envisioned and it made physically ill to see how it was picked apart and destroyed. That is how I feel, I hope you can understand my feelings and I in no way mean any disrespect. --YokaiShadow 06:36, 22 June 2021 (MDT)

How you had it beforehand made it clear that each subclass should've been it's own separate class, since each had their own abilities at every level, rather than mashing them up into one class. --Lavie (talk) 06:52, 22 June 2021 (MDT)

Even if that is the case on how you feel about it what gives you the right to destroy someone else’s work? If you didn’t like how the class that I made was built then don’t you think you should have made a variant of your own that woulda have been more to your standards?--YokaiShadow 12:10, 22 June 2021 (MDT)

Alright, I’m gonna try to take the civil approach here, even if it bites me in the butt.

Essentially, this isn’t your page anymore, it’s public domain. You made it, you posted it, but as soon as it was posted, it’s now everybodies class. Lavie had every right to be able to fix or alter pages, so long as they are beneficial in nature.

The reason he didn’t make a variant is partially because then we’d have one functional version of this page, and one non-functional version. If both are listed the same, then that’s opening up potential hazards for players or DMs that want to use the material. So, he just stuck with this page.

It’s not just his standards, that the edits are based on. There’s a number of precedents on the wiki, ditacted by design guides and other such things, which say how things should be. Classes should get subclass features at the same level and should be of relatively similar power is one of them. It’s not just “according to his whims” or anything.

I really hope you know nobody bears any ill will towards you here. The only reason Lavie made edits to the page is because he wanted it to be better. I can understand you being angry about this, but please understand that this isn’t about ruining your work. --SwankyPants (talk) 12:20, 22 June 2021 (MDT)

I understand what you are saying swanky and I want my class to be the best it can be. However my main point and what upsets me the most is the fact that this is no longer my class, it’s so incredibly changed that what ever this class is, it’s NOT the same class as before. Some names and ability’s may be the same but this and what I created are two completely separate creatures that wouldn’t even be in the same genus. I looked over both and to me it’s like comparing a chimpanzee to a crocodile. Understand swanky I also have no ill will towards anyone but it honestly takes all I have in me to not just straight up requests deletion of this mockery of what I created.--YokaiShadow 14:09, 22 June 2021 (MDT)

In all honesty, I can't agree with that assessment. Looking at the differences, most of the work done was just standardization(hell, even the weird 14th level Expertise was left alone). While there certainly has been other changes, I can honestly say that it looks like most have been for the best. Might I ask exactly what part of it was "picked apart and destroyed"? --SwankyPants (talk) 14:35, 22 June 2021 (MDT)

Probably the part about what you get for proficiencies and class features being dependent upon which subclass you take, which is ridiculous. --Lavie (talk) 14:53, 22 June 2021 (MDT)

I do understand thag point Swanky, though I also understand that sometimes simply having several of your ideas changed and/or having something you have worked on and believe to be completed reworked and/or changed can be tough. The thing about working on pages that already exist on the wiki though is that is future editors that come after the original creator may change facets of a page to something different than what the creator intended. These editor's ideas are not always perfect or what the original author intended, but the editors are really trying to do their best to make the homebrew better. --Blobby383b (talk) 15:01, 22 June 2021 (MDT)

Oh fluff...well I just wasted my last hour of typing. I dont feel like I can type it all again as I went ability by ability and change by change. Addmiting where some things were better and some were the same, but also fully addressing EVERY thing that I felt was destroyed as the very core of the class. And no Lavie it is NOT ridiculous. It was meticulous and meaningful to what each subclass represented and what each one would have been capable of. I will retype a bit of what I said before and again say I am not trying to be rude or disrespectful. Lavie, you expanded on some of my ideas and cleared a few, while even improving a couple in ways I didn't think possible. That said, I will try to retell what I'm trying to get across.

Air(plane) Land(Tank) Water(Boat) I'm not counting Laffeys as that wasn't me. They all work vastly differently and DONT have the same capabilities in the LEAST. Each subclass was made to represent one of those. Yes you can argue they should have been different classes all together but then there would have been no subclasses what so ever. Maybe thats not a bad thing, but it wasn't how the core of the idea worked. By rolling the abilities together not only do some of the descriptions not make sense anymore, but it takes away the uniqueness of what each subclass is supposed to represent and insinuates that they would all be capable of the same thing, when they simply are not.

I want my class to be the best it can be. I do. Thank you for TRYING to help, but also understand I dont mean to be aggressive or rude, but I dont check this but once every few months now and when a former player of mine DM'ed me on discord letting me know what happened and I saw it myself I was SHOCKED. So I apologize if I came off rude or anything. So all that said please PLEASE tell me that any of you can understand what I'm saying and how the core idea worked and how I feel it was destroyed entirely and made into something completely different.

PS Late Edit: Lavie you did forget to add in effective ranges for the Artillery Shells. Just incase you didn't notice.--YokaiShadow 16:34, 22 June 2021 (MDT)

If you can't come up with subclasses for them if they were each their own class, that's your problem. Again, how you had it, it would've been better off as 3 separate classes, each with their own subclasses. --Lavie (talk) 16:58, 22 June 2021 (MDT)

I, again, don't understand what you mean by the core idea being completely destroyed. As far as I can tell, most of the mechanics and ideas are intact. Since I can't seem to get a straight answer on this, I'm going to assume it's because it was rewritten.

Out of curiosity, do you know about the Ship of Thesius? It's a thought experiment, where an old ship has rotting boards. Over time, these boards are replaced, until no boards from the original remain. This feels like the same kinda situation to me.

Originally, this page was awkwardly worded, and kinda janky by all regards. Eventually, Lavie came along and replaced the wording with something more functional. It certainly looks like the Ship of Living Weapon, Variant, but it's made up of new boards.

I'm sorry if this deal upsets you, but that's just kinda how the wiki works. When you post something, any other member has the right to improve upon it, and standardization is considered improvement. Sometimes, standardization requires replacing every last board. You do sign up for this as soon as you hit that submit button, as I quote from a few pixels under, "If you do not want your writing to be edited mercilessly and redistributed at will, then do not submit it here."

I can't tell you anything that'll improve this situation for you any further, and I'm sorry about that. --SwankyPants (talk) 17:11, 22 June 2021 (MDT)

It is fine Swanky. After taking some proper time to sleep, and calm down I've realized this not entirely a bad thing for me. As you said it is public domain and thanks to the logs I didn't really lose anything. Lavie did also do some pretty good work in area's that I struggled with. I am definitely not good at wording and some things definitely needed better balance. Heck the Hyperdrive ability revamp is something I actually really liked and is a big improvement that still fits with my theme. That said I can actually use what Lavie has done to improve it in its original form on my user page.

Lavie I would also like to say something to you. Though I've said it before, I want it to be more personal now. I am sorry Lavie for being aggressive and essentially attacking you. I make no excuses and admit I was wrong for what I did. I hope you can forgive me for my actions and Thank You for helping to make this class the best it can be and even though we do not agree on how it should function in it's entirety you did do an excellent job and I will try to learn from what you've done help me balance things in the future if I make another class.--YokaiShadow 19:16, 22 June 2021 (MDT)