Talk:Mundus (3.5e Class)

To do list for class

• Add final lore sections

• Add a section about the history of the class

• Add example uses for mundus powers for clarity and ease of use.

Just about done, the class features have been extensively re-balanced and play-testing is occurring. --Vrail (talk) 14:47, 27 January 2017 (MST)

Length

Ok, I get that you want this to be your shining achievement and all. That's great. Here's a quick tip. Walls of text are borderline offensive. I, and most everyone else, don't want to read 2600 words before getting to class features. I totally understand the problem. There is so much you want to convey. You want everyone to see exactly what you've seen, and know exactly what you mean. However, what you're going to end up doing is making anyone just outright skip all the flavor text and go straight to the crunchy class features. So take my advice, or don't, but I recommend cutting down what you have written to about 1/3 what it is now. I mean jeez, this comment is getting too long at this point... --Badger 23:32, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

Lol, I've always been a big reader so I guess going through those big walls of text doesn't bug me as much. I still want to include the same level of information, however perhaps if I break it into more paragraphs or reformat it a bit it would read through more easily. Maybe a few more pictures would add some encouragement?

Also, yes I do want this to be my shining achievement (Actually I want my campaign setting Orion to be my shining achievement, but judging by the amount of information I'm putting on it, that'll be another year or so.). Did you just make that inference or did you take the time to find it on my userpage? Just wondering :)

Oh, and thanks for the tip, always like to hear feedback. --Vrail 05:43, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

Actually, I did read it on your user page. I have finals coming up, and I read just about anything I could today to distract me from my impending doom. :) --Badger 07:04, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

I find that the wording (so far) is not redundant and is engaging. Sometimes when I read something I get bored, and I imagine this is what Badger is talking about, but I do not find this to happen here. I recommend that you do not remove any, and I hope to see the descriptive wording continue after the class features to help define this class more. --Green Dragon 01:40, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

Ok What?

I'm a little confused as to what you want this class to do. I mean don't get me wrong I'm all for creativity but I agree with Badger it's a little long to read all of it. But if you can give me a general overview of what you want I can probably help with abilities.--Dragoona22 08:50 AM, 10, June 2010

Lol, willing to help me even after I added a delete tag to your work? :) I included a few ways to make it easier to read in my previous statements, however I do want all that text to be there. I would like your help designing abilities, thanks for offering. Here is what I'm looking for if you still want to help.

I want something that has the low health of a spell caster, and in effect is a form of a spell caster, however does not use actual spells (Or has limited use of them). The mundus is an elementalist, in many ways much like the shugenja. Instead of spells they will have a multitude of supernatural, special, and spell like abilities related to changing and manipulating the elements. They also require a certain amount of meditation per day otherwise they cannot use any abilities relating to controlling the elements.

Was that understandable? --Vrail 17:11, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

Are you aiming for something "Avatar: The Last Airbender", or more like elementalist classes from Guild Wars (I never played WoW, do they have an elementalist?)? Will the Mundi be focused on a single element, or will they have power over all elements? Are you intending to make mechanics for wind and water, as they don't normally exist in DnD (offensively, at least), or will you stick to fire/cold/lightning/acid/sonic/etc? --Badger 20:35, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

I'll have to look into the avatar and guild wars elementalists. However for your latter questions, I want them to have power over all elements, however have a specialized element that they are strongest with (much like a shugenja). I would like to make offensive mechanics for wind/water, as well as defensive mechanics for fire. --Vrail 15:46, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

If you want this to manipulate the elements I recommend you take a look at Frostburn pg. 8-9 to see certain environmental conditions and how they affect players. This class could, in a raw form, create elemental deviations which affect people in ways like that. Of course SRD:Endure Elements could help with ideas as well.

What do I recommend? It could get spells like the dire winter which is described in Frostburn, and for other environments too. It could also be able to manipulate terrain, comparable to something like SRD:Web (just maybe with plants growing, snow banks, wind-blown sand dunes, etc). It could even have rituals it can perform, over a long period of time, which change the environmental conditions to a certain degree (e.g. if it was done in a lava terrain snow would be far fetched) for a lengthened time. --Green Dragon 01:55, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

Wow, thanks for the suggestions. What I'm getting from what your saying is a focus on environment rather than evocation or the like (such as throwing fireballs). The suggestions you had for doing this look quite good and I'll definitely check out that book. I love the idea of rituals, hopefully I can figure out some workable special abilities from this. :) --Vrail 03:25, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

When I read it I thought that since it says "They are designed to understand the changes that the world goes through, and furthermore, understand how to manipulate them.", "Earthquakes shake the world", "Water is another great force of change; it carves out the rocks, it erodes all the things we build but too it gives all things life.", and "The wind it blows smashes the rocks to bits, whips around the trees and can even knock down mountains." they would learn how to manipulate things like these. What does that mean, huh? Fireballs seem to fit into fire, like I mentioned the "dire winter" above (which is actually an epic spell). Are you planning on just mixing evocations spells, like those, and environmental control (create elemental deviations which affect people like on Frostburn pg. 8-9, manipulate terrain, rituals which change the environmental conditions to a certain degree for a lengthened time)? It could manipulate the winds around itself to throw opponents weapon onto the ground, have the weapon attack the person, fling people around (DC's), etc. --Green Dragon 16:41, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

I am planning on mixing spells like those, however I also will be adopting them and changing them from the base spell slightly because I am still considering wether or not to give them spells. I'm thinking that maybe they could be primarily based around special and extraordinary abilities that are related to manipulating the elements, and possibly based off of spells. However their actual spell casting abilities would be non existent or limited.

Oh, and sorry if I confused you, yes that is what I meant by those lines that you quoted about controlling environment. I had just misinterpreted your comment as saying that they should be solely based around environment. --Vrail 21:49, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

Power Drain

I like this class feature. However, I find that it is not terribly versatile. Here is what I recommend.

"For the purposes of this ability one square meter of fire posses 100 energy, one square meter of water posses 30 energy, one square meter of air posses 25 energy, and one square meter of earth posses 10 energy."

Instead of basing energy off certain "elements" why not use a system which has proven to have merit, the periodic table of the elements and basing the 'energy' off the chemical compounds weight.

1. This is found by taking each compounds molar mass (u) — a compounds molar mass is found by taking the molecular weight of each element in the compound and adding them together
2. Then that number × 3.66086154×10^-27 (lbs), so the answer is in lbs and we can then use any weight of an object.
   • Of course this is taking in consideration one is on planet Earth, with Earth's gravity. If they want the gravity different they would have to use slugs, or .031 slugs/lb. And then use the universal gravitational formula (unless ones campaign switches gravity up in places) is <math>F = G \frac{m_1 m_2}{r^2}</math>.
     • G, universal gravitational constant is 3.439×10^-8 ft³/(slug×seconds²).
     • M₁, Earth weights 4.10×10²³ slugs.
     • M_lbs, 1 lb is .031 slugs.
     • r, radius of the Earth at the equator is 20,931,758.5 ft.
     • So <math>F = (\frac{3.439*10^-8 ft^3}{slug*seconds^2})(\frac{4.10*10^23 slugs*.031 slugs}{20,931,758.5 ft^2}) = 1 \frac{foot*slug}{second^2} = 1 lb </math>

Of course one would have to use his or her imagination when making certain things, like mithral, and maybe even make new elements to coincide. A few common values are listed below:

Name	Structure	Molar Mass	lbs
Water	H2O	18	6.6×10-26
Silicon Dioxide (sand)	SiO2	60	2.2×10-25
Cellulose (⇔ plant matter)	C6H10O5	162	5.9×10-25

Of course a single 'energy' value would have to relate to pounds. Anyway, thoughts on switching the ability to using this method? --Green Dragon 17:35, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

I remember reading a discussion somewhere on this wiki that may pertain to this; although I cannot remember its name. Basically somebody was talking about how something would not scientifically work, and how to change it to be more accurate. The creator replied that DnD was about magic, and escaping from actual reality, so once you started getting to into the 'real' science, it began to break down. In the same way I would like to respond to this.

To start I would like to say that this idea does have merit and I may incorporate pieces of it into the ability either way. However your idea about the periodic table does start to break down what I was planning on basing this class around. Around 450 BC Empedocles came up with the Four Elements Model which stated that all matter was comprised of varying amounts of the four 'root' elements; fire, earth, air, and water. Seeing as DnD exists in a world where magic is real and commonly is played out around that time period, for this class I am using fake science and assuming that this four element model is real. However perhaps I should expand on the fact that I'm using this fake science as to limit confusion.

In the same way as that, rather than making it to scientifically broken down, sometimes it's nice to just say "Elements are comprised of this magical force called energy.". So those are my thoughts on it, but if you still think it's a good idea I may change my mind after further discussion. At the beginning of your statement you said that you wanted to do this to make it more versatile. However using the theory that all things are comprised of these four elements, then I think it works. :) --Vrail 22:52, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

I love the chemistry, but molecular mass is a weird way to determine how much energy is in a substance. CO₂, pound for pound, has less usable energy than coal (C) and oxygen (O₂), even though they weigh the same. (Also, you have to get into density; one pound of 0 degree C air O₂ (probably) has more usable energy than one pound at 100 degrees.) Even if you wanted to make it more sciencey, I don't think it can be done very simply. (Yay, I finally get to put my ChemEng degree to some use!)

As for the ability as written, it should probably be cubic meters, not square meters. Heck, simplify it to 5-ft cubes so you don't have to have a calculator out. Err, at least, any more than you already have to have it out to use this ability. JazzMan 00:51, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for pointing that out, it makes a lot more sense to use 5-ft cubes. Also, you said that there may be a need to take out a calculator for this ability as is. I tried to keep the mathematics as simple as possible, I kept it generally to basic multiplication. Do you think it should be simplified even more? --Vrail 19:26, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

Let's say the method of using chemical compounds makes more sense to determine the "magical transferable energy" in a substance. If this is the case can <math>V_{\rm m} = {M\over\rho = \frac{m}{V}}</math> (<math>V_{\rm m}</math> = molar volume, <math>M</math> = molar mass, <math>\rho</math> = mass density, <math>m</math> = mass, <math>V</math> = volume) be used to figure out the weight in 5 cubic feet (a square)? If this is the case (or if there is another method) then I would consider this method, if not then I would not. Do you know? --Green Dragon 19:55, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

A problem which could be present with both methods is the conservation of energy. Let's say an owlbear is attacking on earth (dirt) material. I want to change the earth material, 10 energy used for 5 ft³, underneath the owlbear. Let's say I want to change 25 ft³, surrounding and including the owlbear, to air. This takes 50 energy for the earth but to make it air it requires 625 energy. Where does this extra energy come from? If it is done the other way, where does it go? --Green Dragon 17:04, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

I'm not exactly sure I know what you mean; are you wondering why certain elements have so much more energy in them than others? If so, I can give an answer, if not, could you try to reword your question? Basically the reason air has more energy than earth is because air has a higher density of energy, containing more energy in each 5-ft cube. I decided air would have more because air is a lot more wild and untamed than earth is, air constantly moving freely while the earth only shifts every so often. This is also true with water and fire. Water is close to air seeing as they are very similar in that aspect, however I decided that water would have more energy. Fire is kind of self explanatory.... Using this system energy is almost like a semi magical force, and just like magic varying amounts of strength can be held within each object. --Vrail 17:28, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

I understand why some elements have more energy associated with them than others. What I am wondering is, in the process of switching elements into other forms, what happens to the excess energy? Or does it come from the Mundus itself? I guess the question really is, does 1) the Mundus store energy and then, in the process of switching elements, use some of that energy or 2) does the Mundus have a certain amount of energy he/she can use each day and then, through the process of switching elements, where does the extra energy come from or where does it go? Or, when one converts that earth to air does the player lose 575 health (If you give extra energy to an element your health will deplete by one for every point you give away because of the immense strain on your body of losing its core energy.) --Green Dragon 18:04, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

Vrail: the only things that might warrant a calculator are the 30 points for water. 10, 25, and 100 are easy to calculate in your head (25 is harder, but you can multiply by 100 then divide by 2 twice), but 3's are harder to multiply in your (or at least my) head. The other thing that might need a calculator is for the amount of energy in a human... that formula ain't easy.

GD: Yes, your equation works, though the some of the variables in your equation are hard to come by. What's the mass density of dirt? What's the molar volume of a human foot? But theoretically, if you had those values, that equation would be a realistic enough explanation. JazzMan 19:10, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

I have always been a huge proponent of "science is fun"". We could all sit down for hours trying to calculate the specific heat of materials, or we can say "Earth is 10, Water 25, Air 50, Fire 100". Because this world is made of magic, we have to let some scientific things go. But yeah, if you want to use chemistry, you'll want to use specific heat, not molar masses. --Badger 19:55, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

<math>m = \frac{18g/mol*5ft^3}{18ft^3/mol}</math> cannot be right... Then the element is irrelevant. Or do I not have the correct values for something? I think this is the case since the answer should be in grams not grams/m². --Green Dragon 20:15, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

Specific heat is a measure of how much heat a substance can absorb (per increase in temperature), not a measure of how much energy a substance has.

GD, I'm not sure what that equation is... were you trying to solve for mass in your above equation? It should be <math>m= \frac{5ft^3*M}{V_m}</math>, which is the mass of a substance in a five-ft cube... but since Vm and M are both dependent on the chemical substance, the elements are not irrelevant. (Units are [ft^3*g/mol]/[ft^3/mol], which cancels to just grams.) If that's not what you were trying to do, then I have no idea what that equation is. JazzMan 21:22, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

Ya, that's what I was doing. Although what are <math>V_{\rm m}</math> (molar volume) and <math>M</math> (molar mass). I think the molar mass is "found by taking the molecular weight of each element in the compound and adding them together". So, for example, H₂O is 18. The molar volume, I guess, is where I am stuck. Is it 1/the molar mass (I didn't try that above)? Or what is it? --Green Dragon 01:33, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

Wow, ok. These formulas are getting a little bit over my head. However I can give an answer to the two questions that were posed earlier by GD.

Q. Does the Mundus store energy and then, in the process of switching elements, use some of that energy?
No, a mundus cannot use stored energy to later give to other elements. When switching elements by giving away energy they must use energy they posses naturally.

Q. Does the Mundus have a certain amount of energy he/she can use each day and then, through the process of switching elements, where does the extra energy come from or where does it go?
Yes, the amount of energy the mundus posses within themselves naturally, as calculated by the given formula, is their base amount of energy usable each day. Every time they meditate this energy replenishes (the mundus and effects of their meditation will be expanded upon later). When changing elements their is no extra energy being given or received. The energy given or received is limited by the amount of energy the element posses. If you are inquiring as to where energy goes when your personal energy surpasses 1000 then I can give you another answer. When you are overloaded and your energy goes beyond 1000 then the extra energy returns to the element you just stole it from.

Hopefully that answered your questions and cleared up any confusion. If not, please say so and I'll try to provide a more accurate answer to these inquiries. I will also review the ability to make sure these questions can be addressed so others will not have the same questions about the ability. Oh, and as a side note, mundus is not a proper noun and therefore should not be capitalized. This works in the same way as the word wizard is not capitalized in literature (such as in the commonly known Harry Potter series of books). --Vrail 02:19, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

←Reverted indentation to one colon

Molar mass is the mass of on mole of a compound, which, since molecular weights are described in terms of 1 mol, is the same as adding together the molecular weights of the individual elements in the compound. Molar volume is the amount of space a compound takes up at a given temperature and pressure. It's units are volume/mol. This thing changes wildly for any given substance, especially if said substance is a gas. (Using the ideal gas law we know that any ideal gas has a molar volume of RT/P, where R is the ideal gas constant, T is the absolute temperature, and P is the pressure; substitute those into the above equation and it gets complicated quickly.) JazzMan 03:44, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

I found elements molar volume. Can these value be used? If so would H₂O be H+H+O (40.2 cm³)?

E.g. <math>m = \frac{18g/mol*5ft^3}{0.0014196ft^3} = 63.4 kg/mol = 4.3 slugs/mol</math> or is it <math>m = \frac{18g/mol*5ft^3}{0.0014196ft^3/mol} = 63.4 kg = 4.3 slugs</math>? --Green Dragon 04:25, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

Ok I was gonna help but I've been reading all this and I can't make heads nor tales of this. I mean that this has turned into a chemsitry/physics talk and I took neither. So I'm still consused with whats happaning. I get now that you what this class to manipulate and change the natural world. One, I would change energy to mana (might help with chem talk) and two tell me, are you seeking a kind of last airbender type of power and also make energy/mana something the mundus uses himself like power points for psions not something he draws from nowhere. --Dragoona22 11:20pm, 3 July 2010(mdt)

Lol, I honor your persistence, thanks for reading it all through. I was also getting a little bit confused with all of the chemistry and physics going on there. To respond to your comments, I would much rather use the phrase energy over mana because mana makes it sound to clichéd to the stereotypic magi. I realize that saying energy presents some confusion over just simply saying mana, however after weighing each side I have figured that the wording of energy outweighs the detrimental effects of using it.

Getting to your second question, after one of the earlier responses on this page asking me what I want with this, I did look into the avatar type power. It seems to fit what I want to some degree with this class, with only two major differences. One being that the avatar people do a lot of evocation, and this class I think would work better if I incorporated more subtle magic (for example the way magic works in Lord of the Rings) and environmental changes. This is not to say that some evocative (creation) magic wouldn't work, it would just be less important than in avatar. The second difference would be the fact that mundus are more all around elementalists, whereas, other than the main character in the series, most people from that show focus on a single element. To answer the second part of this question I will say yes, the mundus draws power from himself as well as the world around him. Many powers and abilities come from inner focus, however he also uses the power from the elements around him for some abilities.

Is this starting to make more sense, or am I just confusing you? Either way, if you do decide to help make the abilities for a mundus you can leave the description of a mundus's meditation to me, as I have a good idea of what I might want with that. --Vrail 23:32, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

Well what I was saying is that instead of saying this amount of matter has this much energy say you need this much energy to change this much matter. Sort of the same system that psions use for their powers. Then say you expend this much energy to do this thing with this type of matter. I agree with you that different types of matter need to use different amounts of energy for instance saying that you need more energy to manipulate fire than earth but I'm just suggesting that you make it more the mundus makeing things change than everything changeing because he asked it to. Also for the power drain thing if you went my way make it so you use it on a willing live target or a dead unwilling one and you roll this many d6s to recover this amount of energy. Also saying you would get much more energy for a willing target than an unwilling one also saying that the amount of energy you get more and more as you level up. Maybe at one point ant higher levels maybe say 18 he could have an ability where a target must make a fortitude save dc low say 17 if they are aware and higher say 21 if thy're not and if they fail you absorb all the energy in their body and put them at zero health and unconcious. Also as far as wanting him to draw energy from the enviroment you could instead of wanting him to take everything from nature you could do it in the same way a druid does as in you could entail taboos like the druid and the Wu Jen does (the Wu Jen is in Complete Arcane in case you didn't know)instead of makeing him completly relient on nature. --Dragoona22 6:34 July 2010 (UTC)

I agree that just changing living creatures would be a problem. It could be very overpowered. And when you say "that different types of matter need to use different amounts of energy" all I am trying to do, with the formulas above, is make the "different types of matter" be much more inclusive than just a few 'elements'. Does it need to be? Of course not. But I am just trying to make this move away from classes like the bender and give it more versatility and flavor. --Green Dragon 21:32, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

I would like to give this as much flavor as possible and steer away from copying other classes. However using the idea that everything is made up by different ammounts of these four elements (which I would like to stick with) I don't see how I can make it more inclusive than just a few elements. I could offer examples of how much of these elements are in different types of matter if you think that would help? --Vrail 08:01, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

Havn't been on for a while srry. I kind of know what you are getting at now but first I think that air should have more energy that water does because the wind moves and changes alot more than rivers and oceans do. Also I think that the abilities to take energy from the elements and the abilities to give it back should be different. Also I would ask that you add anothe element to the list with more energy than fire which of course would be lightning. Another idea I had was that when you store energy in you're body instead of it simply dissapating into the atmosphere when you reach 1000 you could us an ability something along the lines of overload taking strength or dexterity damage in exchange for evacuating all the energy in you're body for a large desructive burst of pure energy. --Dragoona22 23:13, 19 August 2010

Wow, ok, a lot to adress there. :) I was actually going to change it so air had more energy than water, however forgot what I was going to do when I got to the page. So thank you for reminding me and I will change it. You mentioned the rules for giving and taking energy from elements should be different, how so?

I am actually against adding lightning as an element. This is for a few reasons, the first being that in the original model thought up by Empedocles in around 450 AD there were four elements that made up all matter; Earth, Air, Water, and Fire. Continuing off of this for my second reason, this model lasted for hundreds of years and was the basis for the entire concept of alchemy and permiated all of scientific belief. Implying that in around the time that many D&D adventures are staged they would have believed that all things consisted of just these four elements. D&D being a game were we take all of the beliefs of the middle ages and make them real, this just fits. Finally, in the 3.5e book Complete Divine they list a class called the Shugenja. This class is also based around the principle that all of matter is made up of these four elements. In the entry it also implies, if not directly stating that in the D&D game all things are made of these four elements. That's why I'm sticking with the four and not adding lightning. :)

I do agree with your idea of an energy overload and taking inherent damage. I'm not sure why I didn't add that rule in the first place. It is obvious to me that some parts of this ability need reworking so as not to be exploited and be less confusing to readers. Thanks for all of your input.

Also, I have been meaning to play test this ability soon (Even without the class completed I think some play testing would help, if done right). I won't be able to get to it right away though, I am currently DMing a very developed campaign so I don't really have anybody or anytime to play test it with.--Vrail 02:19, 19 August 2010 (MDT)

I'm just sugesting that you differentiate between draining energy (power drain) and inputing energy (power input) jsut so one you can have more than on class feture and so you don,t confuse people about the different effects of takeing energy away and then introducing it.

--Dragoona22 02:19, 19 August 2010 (MDT)

I have separated them and made power give a subset of power drain. Also, about lightning, I am considering adding specific rules concerning it. Perhaps talking about how lightning is made of fire, however an extremely high energy form of it, possibly detailing how much energy is needed to make fire appear as lightning.

I am also considering listing energy distributions in various common materials and how energy relates to magic. Thoughts? --Vrail 20:26, 19 August 2010 (MDT)

Howdy

So, like I said, here I am. My thoughts are honestly going to kind of mimic some of what other people there have already said. But first, I like the idea of a sort of alchemist/elementalist. (Indeed, I've been working on my own for 5e for some time now.) Also, ignore Badger. I love reading detailed and rich descriptive content for character options. It gives the creation some real meat to sink your teeth into. I don't think anyone should ever shy away from being more descriptive. People who don't like reading can skip it at no cost, but people who want more will always appreciate it. So... Kiss and a slap... Here comes the criticism.

3.5e is really big on character progression, and this class doesn't have much to offer in that regard. One new feature every five levels, compared to the core classes, will make the person playing a mundus feel like he's being left out or left behind. Worse, 4 of the five features are actually just advancements of the 2nd! While that is a nice thing to have, and the feature is extensive, in play it will feel like you aren't going anywhere.

Power drain is a snore-fest. It is mathy and boring. It isnt advanced calculus, but it is more than what most people will be doing at the gaming table. It also puts quite a bit of demand on the DM to give exact measurements and proportions to imaginary space. With a class like this in the party, the DM can't just say what's around, he needs to think about everything's size and mass. He needs to be careful about elemental availability, to control the energy economy of this character.

The big thing that turns me off when reading this though is the sheer vast amounts of implicit and option power delivered by the power drain feature. A character in this class, at about mid-level, basically cannot be contained. With a bit of tactical thinking, they can reshape their world to suit their needs at will. No enemy can meaningfully threaten them. No puzzle can not be dissolved. No hurdle to high or threat too great. The more creative the player is, and the more flexible the DM is, the more powerful this character becomes. Ever see that joke picture of a rat that gets through a maze my chewing through all the walls in a straight line to the cheese? This class lets your players do that. On the flipside, it demands DM complicity in order to function at all. A dismissive, disinterested, annoyed, or dogmatic DM would likely restrict the applicability of this classe's only strength to the point of reducing them to nothing more than a heal bot.

My recommendations

• Split up power drain into a whole bunch of features allowing you to manipulate the environment in many ways, and spread them out across many levels.
• Make the individual features limited in scope and specific in function, so that what they do is clearly stated and mechanically represented.
• Allow some features to become more powerful as character level increases, by subtlely expanding their scope, making them more flexible and giving the player more option power.

Have you been test-playing this content as you work on it? I've found that even simulated play can make a big improvement on design decisions. Nothing beats actually rolling some dice, when it comes to making good homebrew. --Kydo (talk) 17:55, 30 November 2016 (MST)

Thanks a tun for the input! Honestly I was quite enjoying reading the criticism because it reminded me so much of how we play as a group. I think it would be a tun of fun to think about the energy economy around a player. It, of course, is heavily dependent on DM complicity and I feel many DM's or groups may not want to use it at all. I realize the cheese factor here but I feel like in campaigns where this class is allowed, especially by the time the power is attained (5th level), it can add an extremely fun element of creativity and player freedom. Yes, they can chew through the dungeon walls! What will they chew into? Will they forget to keep the walls stable enough? Do the walls not like being chewed...... Are the walls made of the elements at all, but rather are they magically sustained? With the amount of freedom the class offers it can make campaigns develop in very different ways from normal, so I think they shouldn't be allowed in all campaigns (they may just destroy the world in a low magic/fantasy campaign) but they have an incredibly cool place in many other types.

As for your bullet points

• I very much like that idea. I feel like I'll split up the various features of the ability through the levels so you gain more of the various uses as you level up as well.
• I'd actually rather not for this class. I very much intended for the freedom and creativity it gives to the character, and if I begin listing mechanically responsible rules instead of DM arbitration, some of this intended freedom is inherently taken away. If you just mean I need to reword the feature for clarity and brevity I very much agree.
• I would rather keep the scope of the mechanics the same through all the levels to offer even the lower levels of the ability great utility. I feel like it will be more fun that way, allowing for the strength of the ability (and access to the specifically defined uses such as healing or giving power) to be divided up over the levels more than they are now, just keeping the scope and flexibility of the wording equal at all.

Thanks again for all the input! :) Vrail (talk) 22:46, 30 November 2016 (MST)

Just changed up the level table to better spread out the ability, and added a few new ideas. Let me know what you think! I haven't written them all out yet in the description area. Vrail (talk) 23:25, 30 November 2016 (MST)