# Check Out The Forge Domain From Xanathar's Guide



## Leatherhead (Oct 16, 2017)

The quick changes:

_Identify_ replaces _Shield_

Smith's tools proficiency added

You can change metal into non-metal parts of metal objects.

No bonus damage to constructs

Noticeably not changed: The GP limit when crafting stuff (still have to get plate armour the hard way) and the resistance to weapon damage still only works on non-magical attacks.


----------



## OB1 (Oct 16, 2017)

It also confirms Grave as the other new Cleric Domain. 


Sent from my iPhone using EN World


----------



## gyor (Oct 16, 2017)

It also confirms the Protection Domain did not make it.


----------



## Satyrn (Oct 16, 2017)

Introductory paragraph.
An embedded picture.
A link to more!

Why are you doing so much work Morrus? No one else does.


----------



## Kobold Avenger (Oct 16, 2017)

I'm wondering if anyone would allow Artisan's Blessing to create a key to a particular lock... 

I guess you could rule that the Cleric needs to know exactly what the key looks like to work, so one would need to get an existing key or a wax mold.


----------



## chunkosauruswrex (Oct 16, 2017)

Kobold Avenger said:


> I'm wondering if anyone would allow Artisan's Blessing to create a key to a particular lock...
> 
> I guess you could rule that the Cleric needs to know exactly what the key looks like to work, so one would need to get an existing key or a wax mold.




or they could just make the lock into something else


----------



## Satyrn (Oct 16, 2017)

I think I'd require at least a mold, though I might let the whole process work towards an ability check to pick the lock.

 A Wisdom check with advantage probably.


----------



## Xeviat (Oct 16, 2017)

It’s weird that they don’t have proficiency in warhammers ...


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## guachi (Oct 16, 2017)

The class is good. I liked what I saw from UA.

But that picture is ludicrous. At least they got the important parts right!


----------



## Mephista (Oct 16, 2017)

ludicrous?  I think you mean awesome!


----------



## pukunui (Oct 16, 2017)

Leatherhead said:


> _Identify_ replaces _Shield_



This part makes me sad, even though it does make more sense. I was looking forward to playing a dwarven forge cleric wielding a warhammer two-handed who could still up their AC with _shield_ from time to time.


----------



## dropbear8mybaby (Oct 17, 2017)

Mephista said:


> ludicrous?  I think you mean awesome!




No, definitely ludicrous. So sick and tired of stupid weapons and armours in fantasy art. They should be the exception and not the rule. Two nukes wasn't nearly enough.


----------



## Jester David (Oct 17, 2017)

dropbear8mybaby said:


> No, definitely ludicrous. So sick and tired of stupid weapons and armours in fantasy art. They should be the exception and not the rule. Two nukes wasn't nearly enough.



5e has been fairly restrained with the crazy weapons and armour. This _is_ the exception.


----------



## dropbear8mybaby (Oct 17, 2017)

Anyone else think that it's kinda underpowered and uninspiring? At 1st level it's pretty great but once you get past about 5-6th, it's going to basically drop off until it becomes kinda redundant.


----------



## Dualazi (Oct 17, 2017)

dropbear8mybaby said:


> Anyone else think that it's kinda underpowered and uninspiring? At 1st level it's pretty great but once you get past about 5-6th, it's going to basically drop off until it becomes kinda redundant.




Not really, seems pretty decent. With no assumed magic items whatsoever it can be rocking a 22 AC by level 6, and the inclusion of _Searing Smite_ gives it a good edge in melee compared to other clerics. Actually, some of their other spells are quite good too, with _Heat Metal_, _Wall of Fire_, and _Animate Objects_ being the standouts. I only have two real qualms with the class: First is that it doesn't receive any weapon proficiency, which seems to unfairly slant people into playing it with dwarves and elves, and second, that the channel divinity is either amazing or worthless based on how your campaign is run.


----------



## Li Shenron (Oct 17, 2017)

It looks good to me. 

_Identify_ is slightly out of place, but I checked the 1st level spells list and I am not sure there is a much better choice.

Some redundancy between _Magic Weapon_ as a bonus spell and the 1st level ability. It's not a full redundancy because both of them are limited to 1 weapon at a time (the spell is limited through concentration, the ability it's once per long rest) so having both means the Forge Cleric can have _two_ magic weapons (or one weapon and one armor) at a time. Or you know, she can create one through the special ability when not wanting to be hindered by concentration, and instead create one through the spell when wanting a bigger bonus.

Should Warhammer proficiency be automatic? Mmm... not sure about that. All Dwarves get it anyway, so it might be a perk reserved to Dwarf Forge Clerics. Maces aren't that bad for others (in the worst case, you can keep the Mace stats and describe it as a hammer-looking mace).


----------



## Li Shenron (Oct 17, 2017)

Dualazi said:


> First is that it doesn't receive any weapon proficiency, which seems to unfairly slant people into playing it with dwarves and elves




This is always a double-edged design problem... something that the 5e designers have been always aware of: on one hand you _want_ someone to be the best and most iconic, on the other hand you want the others not to feel behind (remember WotC's discussions on the _Knock_ spell vs a lockpicking Rogue?). 

So by _not_ giving extra bonus proficiencies, it makes Dwarven *Forge *Clerics a _little_ 'more Forge Clerics than any other Forge Clerics'. OTOH Dwarven *War *Clerics can easily feel like they have some wasted racial benefits due to duplicate proficiencies. Either way, someone is going to complain about something...


----------



## Aldarc (Oct 17, 2017)

Leatherhead said:


> The quick changes:
> 
> _Identify_ replaces _Shield_
> 
> Smith's tools proficiency added



I know that I made these suggestions for revisions in my feedback. 




Xeviat said:


> It’s weird that they don’t have proficiency in warhammers ...



They would if they were dwarves, which is what I think the original iteration of the Forge cleric assumed, hence their absence of tool proficiencies. 



Li Shenron said:


> It looks good to me.
> 
> _Identify_ is slightly out of place, but I checked the 1st level spells list and I am not sure there is a much better choice.



The idea, IMO, is that crafters and artisans should also have a knack with identifying magic items.



Dualazi said:


> I only have two real qualms with the class: First is that it doesn't receive any weapon proficiency, which seems to unfairly slant people into playing it with dwarves and elves, and second, that the channel divinity is either amazing or worthless based on how your campaign is run.



Playing a dwarven (UA) forge cleric now in a campaign. His channel divinity (and the Mend cantrip) has come up A LOT. Far more than its use against any undead. But we have faced a lot of weapon-melting oozes.


----------



## TwoSix (Oct 17, 2017)

dropbear8mybaby said:


> No, definitely ludicrous. So sick and tired of stupid weapons and armours in fantasy art. They should be the exception and not the rule. Two nukes wasn't nearly enough.



Realism is for museums.  Fantasy art should look fantastic.


----------



## Aldarc (Oct 17, 2017)

dropbear8mybaby said:


> Anyone else think that it's kinda underpowered and uninspiring? At 1st level it's pretty great but once you get past about 5-6th, it's going to basically drop off until it becomes kinda redundant.



Get a follower and use it on them. When that gets redundant, pick up new followers, and repeat.


----------



## dropbear8mybaby (Oct 17, 2017)

TwoSix said:


> Realism is for museums.  Fantasy art should look fantastic.




It's medieval fantasy not ridiculous fantasy so it should look medieval, not ridiculous.


----------



## Azzy (Oct 17, 2017)

TwoSix said:


> Realism is for museums.  Fantasy art should look fantastic.



I'm going to disagree with you both. I think different art directions should be used to differentiate the differing setting. (Yes, I did that on purpose.) The standard 5e art hither to now should be used only for the Forgotten Realms, If the do any Greyhawk supplements, I'd like to see a more grounded, realistic, and historical approach. Consequently, I'd like Dark Sun to retain the Brom-esque art, Planescape to keep its art direction, and so on. This gives each setting its own character visually.


----------



## Aldarc (Oct 17, 2017)

dropbear8mybaby said:


> It's medieval fantasy not ridiculous fantasy so it should look medieval, not ridiculous.



Honestly, I would have guessed that D&D caters more to Renaissance fantasy better, and that era does have some pretty ridiculous looking armor.


----------



## Guest 6801328 (Oct 17, 2017)

dropbear8mybaby said:


> It's medieval fantasy not ridiculous fantasy so it should look medieval, not ridiculous.




I happen to prefer an medieval aesthetic also, but where exactly is it stated that D&D takes place in a "medieval" setting?  Are you assuming that because some technologies correspond to those that appeared in the medieval period in our own history?  That's certainly a reasonable assumption, but by no means the only reasonable conclusion.


----------



## gyor (Oct 17, 2017)

Anyone else notice their is a blank spot that looks like a posted note on one of the Forge Cleric's pages? 

 I believe the little story bits, discussed by Jeremy in the War Mage video, but for the Forge Cleric goes there. 

 I bet all or most of the Subclasses get that.


----------



## Li Shenron (Oct 17, 2017)

Aldarc said:


> The idea, IMO, is that crafters and artisans should also have a knack with identifying magic items.




Yes, obviously. And it's not _totally_ out of place, just _slightly_ because the Forge Cleric is actually not really a magic items crafter, since all she can do is temporarily add a mere + bonus to attack/damage/AC. But then also the Wizard (or anyone else who can learn Identify) isn't a magic items crafter either, so as I said it's not totally wrong.


----------



## Hussar (Oct 17, 2017)

Satyrn said:


> I think I'd require at least a mold, though I might let the whole process work towards an ability check to pick the lock.
> 
> A Wisdom check with advantage probably.




Considering it takes an hour, what are the odds that anyone is EVER going to use it this way?


----------



## dropbear8mybaby (Oct 17, 2017)

Aldarc said:


> Honestly, I would have guessed that D&D caters more to Renaissance fantasy better, and that era does have some pretty ridiculous looking armor.



Other than ceremonial armour, what armour in the renaissance was ridiculous?



Elfcrusher said:


> I happen to prefer an medieval aesthetic also, but where exactly is it stated that D&D takes place in a "medieval" setting?



...


----------



## TwoSix (Oct 17, 2017)

dropbear8mybaby said:


> It's medieval fantasy not ridiculous fantasy so it should look medieval, not ridiculous.



It's exciting fantasy not boring fantasy so it should look exciting, not boring.

See, I can make normative statements too!


----------



## Aldarc (Oct 17, 2017)

dropbear8mybaby said:


> Other than ceremonial armour, what armour in the renaissance was ridiculous?



However practical it may be, most full plate looks pretty silly to me. Of course, I don't see the big deal of embellished fantastical armor in a world of magical crafting, wizards, and dragons. But then again, I suppose the demands for historical realism exists for the most petty of places.


----------



## mykesfree (Oct 17, 2017)

For those that are commenting about the armor my 2 coppers.  It is a Forge Cleric. 
Armor and weapons for this particular Cleric should stand out as being fantastical and noticeably different in some way.


----------



## dropbear8mybaby (Oct 17, 2017)

TwoSix said:


> It's exciting fantasy not boring fantasy so it should look exciting, not boring.




Stupid armour and weapons are boring to me. Real world armour and weapons are much more interesting and exciting. Then again, I'm satisfied with the size of what I have to work with. Others seem to be compensating through fantasy.


----------



## TwoSix (Oct 17, 2017)

dropbear8mybaby said:


> Stupid armour and weapons are boring to me. Real world armour and weapons are much more interesting and exciting. Then again, I'm satisfied with the size of what I have to work with. Others seem to be compensating through fantasy.



I feel like you're judging my next character.

View attachment 89816


----------



## Aldarc (Oct 17, 2017)

dropbear8mybaby said:


> Stupid armour and weapons are boring to me. Real world armour and weapons are much more interesting and exciting. Then again, I'm satisfied with the size of what I have to work with. *Others seem to be compensating through fantasy.*



That's why I have my D&D characters accomplish simple things like sweeping streets instead of saving kingdoms and stopping apocalypses.


----------



## Chaosmancer (Oct 17, 2017)

So, almost no mechanical discussion, instead a lot of complaints about art...

Sounds about right. 

The rules do seem to be nearly identical to the UA version, which might mean a lot more of these subclasses are going to be almost identical to their UA version. 

Still, looking forward to seeing this one.


----------



## Satyrn (Oct 17, 2017)

Hussar said:


> Considering it takes an hour, what are the odds that anyone is EVER going to use it this way?




Pretty high if the party's got a fighter and warlock in it. It looks like the perfect time to snag a short rest.


----------



## Satyrn (Oct 17, 2017)

Aldarc said:


> That's why I have my D&D characters accomplish simple things like sweeping streets instead of saving kingdoms and stopping apocalypses.




Beautiful.


----------



## dropbear8mybaby (Oct 17, 2017)

TwoSix said:


> I feel like you're judging my next character.



Yes, yes that's exactly what I'm doing.



Aldarc said:


> That's why I have my D&D characters accomplish simple things like sweeping streets instead of saving kingdoms and stopping apocalypses.



Don't be silly. You know you're being disingenuous. Real world weapons and armour are cool. There's loads of very interesting history behind them. There's no _need_ to embellish and it's frustrating to search through hundreds of pictures of art only to find everything only suitable to someone with an anime fixation. You have loads of that type of art for yourself, why begrudge me a desire to have more art for my preferences?



Chaosmancer said:


> So, almost no mechanical discussion, instead a lot of complaints about art...



I've discussed the mechanics more than you have and all you seem to have done is complain about complaints.


----------



## Satyrn (Oct 17, 2017)

dropbear8mybaby said:


> Yes, yes that's exactly what I'm doing.
> 
> 
> Don't be silly. You know you're being disingenuous.




You know they were just playing along with *your* joke about overcompensating, right?


----------



## GarrettKP (Oct 17, 2017)

You guys do realize the art is of a Gold Dwarf right? Gold Dwarves are (in lore) artisans that prioritize flashy and elaborate arms and armor to show off what great artisans they are... 

The over the top armor is literally the defining feature of their race.


----------



## Azzy (Oct 17, 2017)

If I were going to complain about the artwork, I'd say that it looks like a dwarvern version of a tiefling.


----------



## Chaosmancer (Oct 17, 2017)

dropbear8mybaby said:


> I've discussed the mechanics more than you have and all you seem to have done is complain about complaints.





And? 


I just found it amusing that it is the artwork that has gotten 4 or 5 pages of discussion while the mechanical discussion is somewhere around 5 or 6 posts. No need to get offended about it, I didn't say you were wrong to complain, or that I even disagree with you. 


My first gut reaction was that of annoyance that they didn't get martial weapons, but that is a good way as someone pointed out to make Dwarven and Elvish Forge clerics slightly better than their counterparts, which I find I kind of like. The bonuses to AC make for a very tanky individual, which again I like, and I'd point out to the person who complained about the level 1 ability losing prominence that +1 AC armor is generally harder to get than magic weapons, and is something I could still see being useful in a 12th or 14th level game. My PCs are level 15 and I think there is still one or two who don't have magic armors. 

I didn't remember them having searing smite before, but the conversation seems to point towards that just being faulty memory on my part, and I like that they get a lot of firey buffs to their damage, even though fire resistance is relatively common. A melee focused Forge Cleric may end up (in my games at least) looking at Elemental Adept, since I let that effect class abilities as well .

I'm also upset with the 100 gp limit on the Channel Divinty, I think that limit should be increased as the character levels and to the people discussing making Adamant armor with this, Adamant armor is supposed to be far more expensive than regular armor, which may be what was being pointed out with the discussion that they couldn't use their channel divinity to craft Adamantium armor. 



All of this to, supposedly, give me the right to comment again that I find it very amusing that we are spending so much time discussing the art of this cleric instead of their mechanics.


----------



## Erechel (Oct 18, 2017)

Li Shenron said:


> It looks good to me.
> 
> _Identify_ is slightly out of place, but I checked the 1st level spells list and I am not sure there is a much better choice.
> 
> ...




I've submitted this when the UA arrived for the first time. It bothers me the extremely high AC the Forge cleric has; don't forget that Shield of Faith increases this to a mind-boggling AC 24. The cleric becomes nearly untouchable for low-level foes, without needing any magic objects. A basic goblin needs a 19 to hit a forge cleric, and there is no way to improve that chances. It appears to me that it easily breaks appart Bounded Accuracy, being tankier than anyone else.


----------



## Hussar (Oct 18, 2017)

Realistically, he's only 1 point tankier than any other cleric.  That's it.  So, I'm having a bit of a tough time thinking that this is breaking bounded accuracy.  

Oh, I should amend that.  It's 1 point tankier than any other cleric that gets proficiency in heavy armor.  But, in any case, not a huge difference.  

Now that they've taken the Shield spell away, it's a lot more reasonable.


----------



## dropbear8mybaby (Oct 18, 2017)

Chaosmancer said:


> The bonuses to AC make for a very tanky individual, which again I like, and I'd point out to the person who complained about the level 1 ability losing prominence that +1 AC armor is generally harder to get than magic weapons, and is something I could still see being useful in a 12th or 14th level game.




Cool, so by level 6 the cleric gets a bonus that a fighter gets at 1st and the paladin and ranger can get at 2nd. Bit of a snorefest as well. It's just not very inspiring.


----------



## Mephista (Oct 18, 2017)

'Some people don't like the Forge Cleric.  I generally like the Forge cleric, save for two minor things.

Personally, the only issue I have with the +1 weapon/armor thing is the lack of scaling.  I really think that it should grow over time.  Or be used on already existing magic weapons.   I like the feeling of things like this growing in power and use as you level up.  I don't get that feeling.  Other than that, I'm quite happy with this.

Overall, I do like the forge cleric, though I must admit that I find it strangely, well... I'm trying to decide if mountain dwarf or hill dwarf is better.   Hill dwarves are supposed to be the cleric, what with their WIS boost.   But, with this guy?  We're going to be wielding weapons more, and I feel like the spells we'll be relying on aren't going to be using WIS as well.  May as well go for the STR bump over the +1 WIS?  Maybe I'm over thinking this.

Probably my biggest gripe is "While wearing heavy armor, you have resistance to bludgeoning, piercing, and slashing damage from nonmagicalattacks." At level 17, where are these mythical non-magical attacks coming from?


----------



## Chaosmancer (Oct 18, 2017)

dropbear8mybaby said:


> Cool, so by level 6 the cleric gets a bonus that a fighter gets at 1st and the paladin and ranger can get at 2nd. Bit of a snorefest as well. It's just not very inspiring.




Actually I was talking about the level 1 blessing of the Forge ability to make the armor magical and give a +1 bonus to AC, since people were complaining about it being useless come 6th level when everyone has magical weapons. I was pointing out that it does not lose it's usefulness because you can always place it on someones armor and not everyone gets all magic weapons and all magic armor even towards the higher levels.


But, if you want to talk 6th level abilities, then note that the Soul of the Forge ability also grants fire resistance, which tieflings get at level 1. So, a Tielfing Paladin who chooses to go with the defensive style who wants to go full defense will have an AC of 23 at level 2 (PLatemail, shield, shield of faith, defensive fighting style) and fire resistance

Forge Cleric can match that at level 1 (PLatemail, shield, shield of Faith, Blessing of the Forge) barring the fire resistance unless they are also a tiefling. Then surpass it at level 6, getting an AC of 24

We could also talk about how Divine Strike is essentially a second weapon attack, which the fighter and paladin get at 5th level. 



Now, I completely agree with you that the ability is not flashy or exciting. Honestly, if I had one big complaint about the subclass it would be that most of their abilities are passive "make my numbers bigger" type abilities. But, +1 AC is always strong, no matter when you get it, which is why it is still a good idea to take defensive at 10th level as a champion. Or why getting +1 armor or shields is still useful. 

Boring I can give you, but let's not start saying "this class gets the same thing first" because those debates don't mean a lot when comparing a full caster to a partial caster, because the spells are always in the background making up the difference.


----------



## Hussar (Oct 18, 2017)

How is a paladin affording Plate Mail at 2nd level?  Just how much cash are you giving your PC's?  We barely managed to afford plate by 4th level and we're a smidge off of 5th.  

But, the point is, how long will it be before you cleric has +1 armor, +1 shield AND +1 weapon?  That's going to take quite a while.


----------



## MechaPilot (Oct 18, 2017)

Looks good.  It's not exciting, but it's a solid domain.  I've just added it as one of the domains that can be granted by my setting's goddess of war/trade/smiths.

As for the art, I can't say I have a problem with it.  The weapon and armor look very heavily embellished, as if ceremonial (or heavily customized by a wearer proud of her own smithing skills); but the armor also looks heavy and protective, the ram's-horn hammer is fairly apropos, and the character isn't sexualized.  The only gripes I have with the art are fairly minor: I dislike the hair-horns, the pose exaggerates the hammer which is already ostentatious enough, and I can't really tell what's strapped-together on her back.


----------



## cmad1977 (Oct 18, 2017)

I’d play this. 


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## Chaosmancer (Oct 18, 2017)

Hussar said:


> How is a paladin affording Plate Mail at 2nd level?  Just how much cash are you giving your PC's?  We barely managed to afford plate by 4th level and we're a smidge off of 5th.
> 
> But, the point is, how long will it be before you cleric has +1 armor, +1 shield AND +1 weapon?  That's going to take quite a while.




The same way the cleric is at level 1

I wanted to see what the biggest numbers were so my example uses the best armor.  

The basic math doesn't change as long as the armor is equivalent, and I was just playing around with the best mundane toys they could get.


----------



## Lance Schantz (Oct 20, 2017)

Any idea on when this will be added to the character sheet?


----------



## Aaron L (Oct 23, 2017)

TwoSix said:


> Realism is for museums.  Fantasy art should look fantastic.




The _fantastic_ parts should look fantastic.  Dragons and magic and such... but things that existed and exist in the real world should look like they do in the real world, otherwise it all just devolves into visual gibberish.  Why not have "humans" be nine feet tall and blue with three arms?  That's pretty fantastic!  Of course, it also obliterates the definition of "human."  I want a sword to look like a sword _really does in real life._

Without a solid grounding in reality to distinguish the mundane from the wondrousness of the fantastic, trying to make _everything_ fantastic, just ends up making everything a muddled mess.

Or to paraphrase a certain supervillain: "When everything is special, _nothing_ is."


----------



## Hussar (Oct 24, 2017)

Aaron L said:


> /snip
> Or to paraphrase a certain supervillain: "When everything is special, _nothing_ is."




Just because it bugs me when I see this trotted out.  

That line is used by the *villain*.  As in the bad guy.  As in, what he says is WRONG.  It's not true.  

IOW, forcing artists to only use mundane art for real world elements is wrong.  Sure, it's ONE kind of art.  But, it's hardly the only kind.  I mean, if we insist on this, then artists like Brom, Tony Di Terlizzi, Erol Otis and many, many others would not appear in fantasy art.

And that would be a very, very bad thing.


----------



## MechaPilot (Oct 24, 2017)

Hussar said:


> Just because it bugs me when I see this trotted out.
> 
> That line is used by the *villain*.  As in the bad guy.  As in, what he says is WRONG.  It's not true.




I won't go so far as to say that villains only say things which are wrong, but I agree with you that what that villain said is wrong.  It's like when I hear people say there would be no good without bad.  Yeah, there would be good, we just wouldn't have a counter-point for it.


----------



## Mistwell (Oct 25, 2017)

So realistically a Ftr 1 (Defense), Cleric 1 (+1 Splint Armor from Blessings of the Forge, +0 Shield) can now reasonably have a 21 AC at 2nd level. By level 7, they'd have an AC of 23 (Plate and Soul of the Forge). Without using any additional resources to do it, or magic items they didn't make magic themselves. That's pretty tanky!


----------



## Leatherhead (Oct 26, 2017)

Mistwell said:


> So realistically a Ftr 1 (Defense), Cleric 1 (+1 Splint Armor from Blessings of the Forge, +0 Shield) can now reasonably have a 21 AC at 2nd level. By level 7, they'd have an AC of 23 (Plate and Soul of the Forge). Without using any additional resources to do it, or magic items they didn't make magic themselves. That's pretty tanky!




This is when you start using intellect devourers on t1 and t2 parties.


----------



## Bardbarian (Oct 26, 2017)

If AC was the only measurement of tankiness then yes, but I have not really seen many bladesingers standing in the front lines for too long. This cleric has a bit more staying power but will not likely infringe upon the pure melee classes when it comes to choosing a front line. I dont believe anything prevents them from making the fighter's armor magical instead of their own adding some party synergy at lower levels or in low magic settings.


----------

