5e homebrew thread!

share D&D 5e home-brews, check out & give feedback on mine.
Will dump martial characters in the meantime

Other urls found in this thread:

critters.boards.net/thread/116/mercer-gunslinger-rules-fighter-arcehtype
dropbox.com/s/82o72v47ddc8lzz/Gunslinger 5E.docx?dl=0
docs.google.com/document/d/1XovWm65MSmIzQWSMDMXo0_aIpZgq9YSa2KkpO3kThS4/edit#
docs.google.com/document/d/1-MEFIyT9jA8dlnomdEUNLIzV3ELhH3FWbcdxb0FSRTY/edit#
docs.google.com/document/d/1OCKL6EVCb3i8ySp2Il9SNyVuRod2Ai3VtvsL9OvjSY4/edit#
twitter.com/SFWRedditGifs

...

On a slightly related note: Is 5e still the current D&D version and what are your experiences with it? (Especially in comparison with 3.5/4e.)

...

...

...

...

...

...

...

...

...

...

...

...

...

...

...

...

...

...

...

...

...

...

What kind of a knightly challenge STUNS enemies? Isn't that trying to take a cheap shot at them?

More importantly, knightly challenge is too powerful considering it's abusable for already too rampant AC stacking if you go up against any big bad foes. The wording on the save throws'against' the target.. Shouldn't it be 'Any save throw that resulted because of that enemy' or something?

Now, here's the real problem. The temporary HP. It's fucking insane, it's not hard to deal upwards of 15+ damage in an attack (not considering crits or multiclassing for, say, sneak attack damage), and your knight level will be at least 10, so you'll be getting at least up to 25 temporary HP from one of your attacks every turn at the mid-levels. Thank god temporary HP doesn't stack. That's kind of over the top, even if it is a level 11 ability that should be strong. It should be just your knight level at most.

Call to arms should specify whether it removes ongoing frighten effects or merely suppresses them.

Iron will is just wrong. Advantage should be conditional, not something you get all the time. I'd change the effect to anything but advantage.

Great cleave is overpowered, especially for 3 level dips, full stop.
Find the gap functions on long rests but fighting challenge doesn't??

Level 20 has some incredibly.. Pretentious flavour text, but the effect, if you compare it to barbarian, is probably fair enough. Though barbarian suffers a lot of trash features to get to level 20.

Continuing...

Overall the sword order is overpowered solely because of that stupid level 11 ability, probably. As if stacking AC and up to +3 damage over possibly three or four hits and other things wasn't enough already.

Brutal execution is just what the fuck.
A free area of effect stun every so often? Really? Not even taking an action or anything?


Immovable object is fine except for the advantage on some things. It seems really odd to give advantage on something that can be toggled on and off.
Instead, I would apply the usual 'size larger' benefit of simplying being able to lift and carry more things. This is mostly about the 'always has advantage' complaint I was making before. If there's a reason they don't use it all the time, maybe it'd be fine, like with barbarian's rage not being on all the time until the very last level. Not a big issue either way.
You should probably add a detriment such as lower movespeed so people don't always have this stance, however.

Fluffwise, I don't really get how an 'immovable object' can easily control a 20x20 area considering they're supposed to not be moving a lot.


Riposte seems pretty strong considering the enemy is going to stay prone an entire round, but eh, you can probably get away with it. I'll complain about it being too fighter-ey in a moment and explain what that means.

...

The lvl 11 ability is once/short rest

Continuing yet further - I think order of the shield would be broken with certain multiclassing, just saying. Chances are it'd always be played with PAM too and probably with a 1d8 (not 1d6) quarterstaff with shield.

The mounted order is a bit iffy because mounted combat is a bit.. Eh. But you can probably get away with it.
Take UA's knight for example - it gives you benefits for being mounted, but doesn't imply or require you to be mounted, because being mounted sometimes isn't suitable for the game.
But, if the DM's fine, it's probably fine.
It seems weird to say 'your DM might give you better stuff at later levels!' without defining what it is, though.

Overall the level 3 feature isn't much more powerful than just getting a warhorse yourself, I guess.

And I guess 'one mind' might be worded poorly, but I'm not sure. I'll overlook it, it's not a big deal.

I'm not sure 'stunned' is the best condition to give to the greater charge thing considering it ends at the start of the turn. Rather, all it does is make the creature autofail strength saves and lose its reaction. But eh, that might be fine.


Overall, with maybe a bit of caution about the sword order and the level 11 ability, I don't think it's overpowered really overall for combat, kinda nice maybe, but it has kind of a big downfall in that it lacks out of combat stuff. Even a fighter gets extra feats they can use for out of combat stuff, or EK spells for that, or.. Tool proficiencies.

So that's my main problem. It's mostly just combat, with little else. Don't get me wrong, fighter is kinda that way too, but fighter is probably the most lacking in out of combat stuff and yet still has more things.

And so is fighting challenge. The only thing is does is stop abuse with the sword order, which is actually kind of a good thing because like I said (because I mistook it was going to be used whenever you used fighting challenge) it'd be crazy if you used it when you had several challenges a short rest and it affected several extra targets.

Yes, 5e is the current edition. Its current state should last a while, though I wouldn't be shocked to see a 5.5 come out eventually.

It's more balanced than 3.X, less so than 4. It does away with 4's style of presenting itself like a guidebook from a vidya RPG (thank Christ), but borrows too strongly from 3.X due to 3aboos whining when they did anything interesting or took from the good parts of oldschool and 4.

Aside from its unfortunate habit of making almost everyone a spellcaster instead of making non-spellcasters have more options, it's pretty decent. Not perfect by any means but easily the closest D&D has come to it in a long while.

The idea of the stun effect is that by lv 18, you would have gained quite a fearsome reputatation, which would make them freeze with fear for a few seconds.

Find the gap does function on long rests, the pint is you have to announce whether you use find the gap when performing a fighting challenge, since the ability would be too powerful functioning on a short rest.

The brutal execution could take up a bonus action i guess, nice catch.

The lvl 7 abilities give out of combat stuff but you are right that for the rest the abilities are lacking

5e's definitely more lightweight than 3.5 and 4e in a lot of ways, stripping away a lot of pointless rules, cutting away almost all modifiers and in general being the easiest to learn and understand. As a GM who likes to improvise a lot and come up with quick rulings to support fun ideas, it's definitely easier than either of them for that.

The most common complaint is the lack of character options, which is a fair point to make. In comparison to 4e, the combat isn't quite as tactical and fun (but it is faster and easier to work into narrativistic style of playing).

I like it the best, personally. Some might prefer 4e due to its combat. Some might prefer 3.5/Pathfinder due to the higher amount of character options.

My experience with it is that it was completely fucking awful to the point where I'll never touch it again. It takes a lot of effort to make a game where both the math and the mechanics are tailor made to provide the exact opposite experience of what I want out of a game, but somehow WotC did it.

I'm curious, what did you dislike about it? And do you like any previous edition of DnD?

Yeah, pretty much.
It's hard to think of abilities that don't rip into the DM's worldbuilding for out of combat, though.

The problem is find the gap is twice per long rest ripping off of champion's capstone ability against possibly several targets at level 15. Crits can be quite powerful with the right stuff, especially considering the ability has synergy with the level 11 ability (more temporary HP) and level 18 ability (AoE stuns every time you crit)
It .. Might be fine, but I think a different effect rather than putting champions to shame would be better. Oh, also synergy with the level 3 ability.

I just realized the stun isn't as powerful as I read it - it's until the start of their next turn, which means as long as you don't attack them as a reaction (Read: Prepare action to smack their face in as they approach you, especially alongside a portent wizard or with an ability to autocrit, such as attacking a sleeping monster) it's basically just a 'you have advantage on further attacks, monsters autofail strength checks and can't use reactions'. I think something more like frighten would be better, but that's already there. Speaking of the frighten's flavour text, I kind of doubt some monsters even know what a knight is.. There could be a 'low intellect monsters (4-) aren't affected' sort of clause.


I suppose the level 3 ability compared to ranger's 'hordebreaker' isn't too ridiculous, but... You can use it more than once a turn. That's worrying.

The order of the sword is kind of crit based, and the abilities are supposed to synergies with each other.
Would it be more acceptable if find the gap was once/short rest.
That way the champion keep his shtick of never running out of abilities, while the knight must use the best moment to activate his increased crit range

Right, yes, as I was saying about order of the sword's level 3 ability
It should be limited to once per turn.
Youshouldn't make 'one attack'
You should make 'one weapon attack' or 'one melee weapon attack' or whatever.
It's also kind of worrying because there are some implied combinations here with level 11 ability:


>have resistance somehow, maybe level dip in barbarian
>be about level 15 I guess
>have temporary HP from level 11 feature, fighting a big bad, have about 35 to 40-ish HP, don't forget you can use polearms+GWM type stuff.
>laughing
>enemies attack you against your extra AC and all that, deal 80 damage eventually
>you're now out of temporary HP again, too bad
>one of them approaches you
>you make a reaction attack
>you crit them, considering 18-20 crits
>you get fucktonnes of temporary HP, considering you just crit
>if you had the level 18 feature the one that just approached you might also be fucking stunned and lose its entire turn
>you get to move away from the guy who was about to come at you and make another attack
>even if you take opportunity attacks in the process, who cares? You'll just get more temporary HP again.
>move and kill
>get another attack
>go slaughter and crit everything
>it isn't even your fucking turn, the monster is just sitting theer dumbfounded

Well, I mean, there are simple fixes, but I think the abilities have far too much synergy with each other and the temporary HP needs toning down.

Great cleave was actually supposed to be once per turn, nice catch

Again, the lv 11 ability is once/short rest

If they want crit synergy, they should take 3 levels of champion. That's how it is.

It's fine to reward slight synergies, but often perfect synergy is something you reward to multiclassing at the expense of later level features and all that.

Yeah, I hoped it was just a mistake.

It should also say 'on your turn' so that you can't use it on the turns of others.

Honestly though, I'd make it a bonus action instead of a free action

Oh, wait, you mean you can only gain the temporary HP once?
I don't think the wording is quite right. It sounds more like you augment your fighting challenge with an ability that gives you temporary HP on every attack.

It's probably okay then, you just need to reword it so it can't be misunderstood. Something like 'When you hit an attack against one of your challenged foes, you can choose to gain temporary HP. You then can't use this feature again until a short/long rest' or something like that.
Note the 'choose' part of it, it's not something that you're forced to do at the start of every short rest.

The lvl 11 ability (temp hit points) now costs a bonus action to activate

At Level 11, your fighting challenge improves, when you deal damage to an opponent you challenged, as a bonus action you can gain temporary hitpoints equal to your Knight Level + the damage dealt. You regain a use of this feature when you finish a short or a long rest.

The wording seems clear to me?

Yeah, that's clear because you have to choose to make the bonus action. By not using the bonus action you're not using the feature.
If there wasn't a specified action it would sound kinda like it has an indefinite duration or.. Something. I'm not sure, but at least some people like me might get confused.

VERSION UPDATE!
thanks for the feedback

>what did you dislike about it?
I could say 'literally everything' and be telling the truth. I don't like how its classes and monsters are designed at all, I don't like how abilities are almost universally gimped versions of far cooler abilities from past editions, I don't like how the game's power level feels even lower than AD&D while the game itself doesn't feel gritty at all, I don't like advantage/disadvantage for several reasons, I think bounded accuracy is a fundamentally flawed concept, especially in the context of D&D, a game that has always relied on the exact opposite of it, I don't like how it uses 3E HP levels while using significantly lower levels of damage for most of the game, I don't like the skill mechanics, nor do I like how feats come at the expense of stat boosts, which means that feats relevant to your combat style are a no-brainer while others are gimping you.
>And do you like any previous edition of DnD?
Pretty much all of them except for 3.X, but at least in 3.X a DM can say "okay, I'm running a game, tier 3 classes only" and I'd be willing to play.

...

You suck at homebrew.

Step aside nerd

Constructive!

I'm a pretty aggressive anti-homebrew faggot, but I don't think the homebrew is all that bad. Not brilliant and there's some minor things but there's no serious problems like >dex+wis save proficiency at level 1 or anything stupid like that.

And it turns out the things I had biggest problems with were just misunderstandings / typos.

Not really much worse than shit like pugilist which gets posted all the time.
Not that I like pugilist at all.

- How big is the Channel Divinity Aura?
- at what level do you gain endure the rime?
- At what level do you gain wrath of winter?

...

...

...

So i have a question, how do you go about home brewing something reasonable? What i mean to say is how to you create something balanced. Is there perhaps a formula or some manner of mathematical breakdown that can help one determine what is reasonably balanced? Or do you just have to eyeball it? Races, classes, feats, spells, abilities, the lot. I've never really done much with homebrew, but sometimes i think it would be interesting. Thing is the only experience i've had with it was when this raging retard in our group tried to push his shit on the dm in order to power game, and i kinda hated that cunt for doing that.

I've never understood the issue people have with bounded accuracy and Advantage. It's a solid method of keeping things firmly outside of the 3.5/GURPS "everything is a number you add or subtract," and keeps the game accessible and easy to newbies to the hobby. I mean, let's face it, we talk a lot of shit about 5e, but when you get right to it its the one we always suggest whenever some newbie comes on here and asks "Have Group, New GM, what play?"

It's a good system in that it provides a solid RPG experience, but it's a better system for one simple reason: You can get bored of it. 3.fags are still 3.fags. It's commonly said that that edition ruined an entire generation of gamers.

5e though? It's everyone's second favorite rpg. You play it, you have fun, you have a solid campaign for a couple months to a year, then you decide you want something more... which is exactly what the "public image of Tabletop RPGs" is supposed to be. A system that's enjoyable, and most certainly has a big following, but it doesn't detract from the rest of the hobby.

>making almost everyone a spellcaster

Are you talkin bout how almost every class has an option to GISH out, or things that feel like spell like abilities?

The only case to know 100% whether the class is reasonable is to plays test it in a campaign, otherwise yeah you eyeball it

...

You argue rules with other Veeky Forumstards in /5eg/ for a year.

That's how I did it, anyway.

Eyeballing, mostly. Compare things to existing abilities to see if they're mostly at similar power level. Occasionally fails if you try to do something that doesn't really have a direct equivalent in the official rules. Asking for feedback and making alterations based on it is good, since at least I'm usually blind to my own mistakes.
Playtesting would be the best, but you probably don't have an opportunity to run campaigns just to test your homebrew stuff.

Only problem I really have with advantage/disadvantage is that it's a huge effect and there's no non-houseruled way to add smaller effects. Like, in previous editions you could apply small circumstancial bonuses or penalties that wouldn't massively affect things but would be thematically appropriate and would grant a small advantage or disadvantage. In 5th edition, however, your only options are no effect or huge effect. It lacks granularity.

You can run one-shot campaigns with your group to test out home-brews

How's it compared to TSR D&D? Is it dungeon crawling or still about builds, combat, storyshit & powercreep, etc like 3e?

That's how it's supposed to be, though.
You don't stack up all sorts of conditional extra bonuses because that gets too confusing.

You either introduce a big deal of a feature or nothing at all.

Has anyone here tried Matt Mercers Gunslinger in 5e? I'm going to be trying it out in an upcoming campaign and wanted to know what you all thought about it in terms of balance first. Would letting the Crossbow Expert perk of making a bonus action attack affect Pistols be OP?

critters.boards.net/thread/116/mercer-gunslinger-rules-fighter-arcehtype

It's starting to go back more towards its routes.

Rules are left more general so the DM rules 'Okay, this is how I'll do this' rather than 'Okay, let me look up the rules in a book and we'll do it exactly like that'

There's still some fun for character builders, but character building isn't such a big part. There are no 'tier 3' classes except for a couple of things that need fixing up. Generally it's more like
>tier 1: paladin and full casters except sorcerer and warlock
>tier 2: everyone else
>tier 3: PHB ranger, pact of the blade-lock, four elements monk

Compared to 4e tactical combat requires more input from the DM and combat can be boring if your DM doesn't spice things up and leaves it as 'you walk up to the monsters and attack repeatedly' and overall classes aren't as balanced as in 4e, but at least classes are more different than in 4e.

5e's not really designed for hardcore games, though you can try with a few edits to things like death saves.

5e's going in a good direction, at least.

Well, would you say the focus is on resource management, careful exploration, etc. and not just clearing rooms of monsters? It's not about hardcore difficulty, just the motivations of play really. There's still no gold for XP right? See I'm interested in an old school style game but I know 5e is readily available, but I fucking hated my experience with 3e

Resource management isn't much fo the gameplay. It's dumbed down a lot unless you use strict encumberance rules and check everyone constantly, and druids can just use goodberry to feed everybody.

Careful exploration.. It's better at it. You don't fuck around with a load of 'find trap' skills and exact skill measurements. It depends a bit on how the DM does it, but it's perfectly possible to run traps more off of logic than rolling dice.
And, if you want, you can often forego rolling and say 'Well, you can succeed at this if you're proficient, I guess, or if you have expertise, otherwise I guess you're going to have to roll with a chance to fuck up'. If you don't do that, bounded accuracy means a level 1 with a -1 in a skill can potentially outroll a level 20 with expertise and 20 in the skill. But, eh.

You can run gold for XP. I plan to. You need a certain sort of game for it, though. Most 5e games tend to be a lot more character and roleplay heavy, so 'gold = XP' dungeon crawling would deviate from that a bit.
Milestones or 'the DM just kinda decides when you level up' is popular, considering it doesn't encourage slaying every single fucking thing you see like monsters = XP does.

Also maybe not as much as in the past but a lot of low level monsters can still be a threat to high level adventurers due to action economy and bounded accuracy.

So, yeah, 5e is much better for old style games than 3e, though meh for resource (Food) management without making edits.

Here's a cleaner layout for abilities
dropbox.com/s/82o72v47ddc8lzz/Gunslinger 5E.docx?dl=0

You could replace it with a step dice advantage system. Circumstantial bonuses are Roll +1d4, +1d6, +1d8, etc. That let's you go from a +2 average bonus up to a +6 average bonus.

Disadvantage might be more tricky though.

Neat! I did one like this a while back, feel free to harvest it for ideas.

I need to go back and fix up the Channel Divinity to make it less similar to Hold Person, but aside from that I'm pretty happy with it.

That does alter a bunch of synergies and things, though, given advantage and disadvantage make it easier/harder to crit, for example.

It does mean you can potentially stack advantage/disadvantage a bit, though. However, often in the case of having multiple disadvantages and one advantage the DM might just rule you have disadvantage anyway or if you have too many disadvantages not being able to attempt at all.

The nice thing about disadvantage/advantage is the DM can easily award it as needed for the situation, without there being complex specific mechanics to it.

Oh boy... I got a huge amount of 5e homebrew I'm working on and plan to work on, so I could really use some help. Thing is, I don't know where to start.

Races: docs.google.com/document/d/1XovWm65MSmIzQWSMDMXo0_aIpZgq9YSa2KkpO3kThS4/edit#

Subclasses: docs.google.com/document/d/1-MEFIyT9jA8dlnomdEUNLIzV3ELhH3FWbcdxb0FSRTY/edit#

Spells: docs.google.com/document/d/1OCKL6EVCb3i8ySp2Il9SNyVuRod2Ai3VtvsL9OvjSY4/edit#

Honestly, I kind of need to start working on the spells more, it might help my class work...

As something relevant to the thread, do you think a "Necromancy Focused Sorcerer" is a viable subclass? I mean, there's the Dread Necromancer in 3.5, which was basically a necromancer build on a Sorcerer's chassis...

But what would you call it, anyway?

>As something relevant to the thread, do you think a "Necromancy Focused Sorcerer" is a viable subclass?

Reasonable. Just make it something about having necromantic magic in your blood, like your grandpa was a vampire or lich or something.

The Misfire properties on the guns in the archetype really suck, especially when you consider the cost of the guns and how you have to go about repairing them if they jam, or worse, break entirely during a fight.

If it were me, I would let my player use the Revolver from the DMG (page 268) and reduce the damage die for the revolver from 2d8 to 1d10.

If they wanted a weapon like Bad News (which is basically a sniper rifle) I would probably require them to spend around 1,000 gold to make a similar weapon, with the stats being:

Hunting Rifle (lever-action), 2d10 piercing, ammunition (150/600 range), reload (4 shots), two-handed, special (you must spend one Attack action to eject the cartridge of the spent bullet and reload a new one before you can fire it again)

And have it be that Lightning Reload at level 15 removes that special function of the lever-action, but still require a full Action to reload the rifle (to slide in 4 more bullets and cock the gun to get it ready to fire again).

It could also be that you're cursed with necromancy. Maybe you caught the ire of a death god, maybe you're a revenant. Maybe you pull a Dishonored.

I'd really base it more off of the UA Artificer archetype. Seems better.

Good point.

I've always been a fan of how Abyssal Exalted work in Exalted. You're about to die, and some Lovecraftian death-entity approaches you and offers to keep you alive with magic death powers. If you serve them.

Seems like more of a warlock thing, but it could work just fine for sorcerer too.

Coincidentally I've been making a Samurai homebrew for the Monk class. Here it is, criticisms/feedback appreciated!

That sounds pretty good. I already run a B/X megadungeon, I'm not interested in running 5e, just want to join someone else's game for the sake of perspective and fun. Is there a term or something to identify a less roleplay/story focused game and more dungeon crawl? or is it just kind of play it by ear?

I'd say you'd call a less roleplay/story focused game more 'OSR' style, more 'dungeoncrawley', more 'hardcore', 'less RP focused', more 'gamey'.. Honestly, I can't think of a generally accepted word for it. There's always adventurer's league/ 'AL', but even that's...


If you know the system well, you could easily tell what sort of a feel the DM is going for. Otherwise, the best way to work it out would be to... Simply just ask if they play more by 'you do what your character would do' or 'you guide your character into doing what you think is 'best'. Maybe even ask their opinion of the death save rules, because a hardcore game doesn't really work so well with standard death save rules I feel.

Looking for some feedback/critique of this archetype. It was originally a full-on class from 3.5 but it ended up being easier to make it an archetype than to port over the full class.

Right now I'm just looking for wording clarification and making sure various abilities aren't just busted OP.

Asked to use Blood Hunter in a new game, DM pointed me at this class instead.

I am excite.

Never got much of the point of gish classes like this.

This and the bloodhunter just seem like extra-edgy Eldritch Knights to me, fluffed out into a full class, when it would be much easier for them to be maybe a fighter archetype or a paladin oath.

Hell, even the gunslinger would probably function best in 5e as a fighter or rogue archetype. Why make a full class when you can get superior balance by making a subclass?

This shit is overpowered trash. Go back to the drawing board. What were you thinking??

>ha ha pact magic as if they're going to actually do this correctl-
>holy fuck they've just done half pact magic without breaking pact magic's rules at all
My only concern is
>15 spells known
Not that you need to know spells when you mostly use them for imbuing.

>point blank shooter
Prepare for archery + point blank shooter fighter builds.

Overall there'snot too much to complain about. Whoever made this probably knows what they were doing.

Even so, it feels kind of lacking, but I like that it does have a few non-combat features. I'd still prefer an official class to either bloodhunter or slayer, but eh, if someone really wants to try one of those they're not oveprowered.

Posting this because /5eg/ didn't give me a lot of feedback last week.

Because muh unique features, guise.
> 20+ garbage gunmage classes

Some comments on the Magus.
I would take the first three levels for spellsword armament and primordial enspell, then go bard of Valor all the rest.

Extra attack, more spell slots.

I read only the stats, and I must have overseen any mention of casting in armor. Maybe specify what vulnerable to magic means? Disadvantage for saving throws? Double damage from magic?

Not so much homebrew but tweak to a UA samurai. No one give any kind of advice in the generals.

An update on the Archetype as of this moment.

Is that Walrock? It is! Big fan of your homebrews, I almost started a campaign based solely around Oath of the Common Man because a friend of mine made a copious quantity of communist jokes. Turns out the guy was an asshole but hey, at least I found that out before I wasted such a quality homebrew on his sorry ass!

I feel similarly. People say it's "rules-light" but to me the mechanics are almost all incredibly boring. Combat is so often thoughtless "roll to attack," and out of combat non-casters have no interesting tools or remarkable abilities. The whole system feels anti-fun to me as a result, as though it actively tries to prevent characters from doing anything exceptional.

Another big problem I have is that the skill system's proficiency modifiers start off far too small, such that being trained in something gives only a pitiful 10% extra chance at something at something. In practice, it made skill tasks feel far too swingy (an expert would inexplicably fail at doing something you'd expect them to have no problem with according to fluff, but then some moron can often succeed at it anyway because they're only slightly less likely to pass).

>One Skill Proficiency
Minimum of two in 5e, it's the lowest you can go considering you don't even get a tool proficiency in this class.

Does anyone have the stats for Tchazzar the Undying?

>Combat is so often thoughtless "roll to attack,"

this is my biggest complaint, half an hour of combat that could just be reduced to a single coin flip for all the decisions our group ever gets to make

Anyone made a 5e version of the Malefactor?