Talk:Dungeons & Dragons 5th Edition

From 1d4chan

Here's a page on the new edition. Now get writing.

Gonna give it a shot. *cracks knuckles* I expect someone's gonna call me out and say "but that's wrong you retard," and that's okay because I got the ball rolling and we'll get to the correct answers somehow. --NotBrandX (talk) 00:53, 13 August 2014 (UTC)

Need some backup on the 'max DC 30' fact. I remember it from an interview but I can't find the mention again. Also I've been hearing whispers about combat being faster but no empirical or objective back-up on that.

The "advantage"/"disadvantage" ends up being equivalent to a single die with +4/-4. max(2d20) has a mean or 13.82 with a mild bellcurve instead d20+4 mean of 14.5 with totally flat. It feels better to roll more dice though, especially when you have advantage and you see see '1' on one die and '15' on the other.

Think we should expand on the races more, like how there are the core races and then the 'exotic' races?

Those were in playtest only, I believe. PHB has no mention of "exotic" races (no more Kender, hoozah!), and has your basic set of races + Dragonbro and Tiefling. No more Eladrin, luckily.

Since when are skills and backgrounds optional? Also 4e legacy could be expanded. Panda-s1 (talk) 02:34, 11 September 2014 (UTC)

Exotic races[edit]

On the topic of "exotic races", the term gets mentioned, more or less interchangeably with "uncommon races" in the 5e PHB. Dragonborn, tiefling, gnomes, half-elves, half-orcs and drow all get mentioned as "true exotics" in the opening paragraphs of the Races chapter (page 17), and the Choosing a Race segment on the same page also specifically calls those six races out as being "uncommon". A sidebar on Uncommon Races, mentioning the five full races but missing the Drow, appears on page 33, further cementing their classification as the "exotic" members of the player's choice. Strictly referring to them as the "exotic races" seems to have been a playtest-only thing, though.

  • Drow is a subtype of Elf now, if I recall correctly. 67.80.164.73 18:34, 19 March 2015 (UTC)

Yo someone make a table of all the races/sub-races instead of the mess it is now.

Worth Playing/pirating?[edit]

Hey, someone has to ask it.

Not sure if I'm going to regret replying to an unsigned comment, but based on what I've read here and elsewhere, it actually sounds pretty decent. Nightwing (talk) 18:59, 12 December 2014 (UTC)

  • I tried running a game. It fell apart, but mostly because the players were immature jerks who wanted to dick around instead of play. It seems like a fine system to me, though, and I'd recommend it if you're interested. -- SpectralTime (talk) 20:03, 12 December 2014 (UTC)
  • It's a pretty awesome system, I play with a group on the reg. Really hardens back to what made it great with 3.5, while keeping some of the very few good innovations from 4E, along with some new stuff. I really like how they scaled back in magic items and the level cap, it makes things much more simple. Grid less combat is also really easy now. -some guy
  • I play in two campaigns and DM a third. My players have hit level 4 in the latter, and I'm about to hit level 5 in one of the ones in which I play. I'm liking it so far, and would go as far as to say that this is the best edition of D&D yet.

Monster Manual Section[edit]

Okay, so, I got a copy of the 5e Monster Manual, and there's a call on the main page to add bits about it, so what actually needs to be said? There's a fair bit of stuff here, so it'd be handy to know what's wanted.

For example, there's no monster versions of playable races, some fairly obscure old critters are back (Aaracockra, or whatever those fucking birdmen from 2e/Dark Sun are called), and quite a few details have changed. There's a new "Legendary Creatures" ruleset (in short, some monsters are so nasty they get unique special powers - these include all metallic/chromatic dragons, aboleths and beholders, just for starters), Succubi have been divorced from the Demons/Devils divide entirely (they're now soul-stealing Neutral Evil fiends who can be found throughout the lower planes)...

  • Now irrelevant, DMG fills all these holes. - some guy

Class Tier Stuff[edit]

Frankly, I don't like or agree with 59.167.188.236's edits. I find them to be unfunny cynicism more-focused on finding something to bitch about than actually providing helpful information, and they are often out-and-out inaccurate in content. But, just deleting all his stuff is bad manners, and for all I know that's what the wiki wants. Advice, opinions? --SpectralTime (talk) 01:21, 25 March 2015 (UTC)

I agree with the above. Giving readers basic info about the classes is nice, but there's no reason for the constant, if not completely overt, references to the 'caster supremacy' argument, especially when one takes into account that such issues are largely nonexistent in this edition.--Asorel (talk) 02:12, 02015-03-27 (UTC)

There's also the fact that 59.167.188.236 is dismissing out of hand every non-combat power or roleplaying benefit for the classes in question. --SpectralTime (talk) 03:41, 27 March 2015 (UTC)

Regarding advice, an effective compromise for the moment would be to strikethrough the sections in questions, or tag them as 'citation needed,' without outright removing them. --Asorel (talk) 02:23, 27 March 2015 (UTC)

Aaaaand, he's back. And completely ignoring this section. Bleh. --SpectralTime (talk) 05:12, 10 March 2016 (UTC)

Witch Hunter class?[edit]

So, Critical Role/Geek & Sundry did up a Witch Hunter 5e class for a game run by Vin Diesel. I don't know my D&D online community well, but I was wondering if that means it should get mentioned on this page? I didn't think so, but I thought I should double-check.116.250.104.193 19:22, 19 November 2015 (UTC)

Homebrew classes shouldn't go on pages about official content, even if the author of the homebrew happens to be prolific.--The Forgefather

Xanathar's Guide Teasers[edit]

So, basically, Mearls has himself a channel on Youube where he's been releasing videos teasing the subclasses that'll be released in November's Xanathar's Guide to Everything. So far, we know the Inquisitive (Rogue), Horizon Walker (Ranger), Cavalier (Fighter), Circle of Dreams (Druid), College of Glamor (Bard), Forge Domain (Cleric) and Samurai (Fighter) are due out. Do we mention this fact and any other crunchy titbits he's given away at the start of the Classes section? Or in each core class's section?

Actually, how should we look at cleaning up this page with all the official subclasses, UA subclasses, and reworked UA subclasses that've come out so far?

For reference, Mearls' channel: https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCPy-338BEVgDkQade0qJmkw/videos--QuietBrowser (talk) 23:04, 3 October 2017 (UTC)

Proposed Cleanup[edit]

So, I've noticed that this page is getting kind of clunky and stuffed full of details that are often repeated on the actual class pages. What do anons think of this proposal?

  • We cut down the class details on this page to an overview of the class in general and a list of the official (printed sourcebook) subclasses.
  • We add a link to the Unearthed Arcana page.
  • On each class's specific page, we talk about the core class's mecanics and the mechanics of its official subclases.
  • Subclasses that are only found in Unearthed Arcana, and early renditions of subclasses that ultimately make it to print, are instead described on the UA page.

Anyone else feel that this would spread the info around a bit more evenly and make the page flow more smoothly?--QuietBrowser (talk) 05:38, 23 November 2017 (UTC)

  • I agree about the need for cleanup. But I think taking the razor to the detailed, point-by-point descriptions of each subclass's every feature is an important part of that. --SpectralTime (talk) 12:04, 23 November 2017 (UTC)

3rd-party subclasses?[edit]

So, honest question: given the core class pages are picking up transcriptions of the various subclasses, how far do we want to take that? Do we want to add notes on subclasses from third party settings like Arkadia, Primeval Thule, Mists of Akuma, Humblewood or the World of Farland? Where do we draw the line, exactly, and how do we implement such stuff?--QuietBrowser (talk) 00:19, 11 March 2020 (UTC)

Optimally, I think we would be best-served by limiting information on the main pages to the content of official Hasbro books. Someone else. (talk) 00:21, 11 March 2020 (UTC)
I think this lengthy class descriptions should be moved to a 5th edition section on each class's page. It's kinda what the page on Fighter ect. are there for. Third party stuff can go in a subsection of each class in its 5e section. --Agiletek (talk) 00:30, 11 March 2020 (UTC)
Honestly? I agree, it really makes more sense to do an edition-by-edition analysis on a class ON a class's actual page/article. Who wants to start cleaning up this page and the class pages, though?--QuietBrowser (talk) 01:16, 11 March 2020 (UTC)

Legends of Runeterra 5e material: does it go here?[edit]

Long story short, an official "guidebook" to using D&D 5e to play games set in the new Legends of Runeterra sub-game "Dark Tides of Bilgewater" has gone up on D&D Beyond, and whilst most of it is just a lore sourcebook, there are some new monsters, new magic items, and of most importance to this article: three new subclasses, in the form of the Path of the Depths Barbarian, the Renegade Fighter, and the Wild Card Rogue. Since they're on D&D Beyond, do they belong here?--QuietBrowser (talk) 02:54, 11 June 2020 (UTC)

Link for reference: https://www.dndbeyond.com/sources/lrdtob

If it's officially supported, as in it has WotC's thumbs up and they are supporting it and it's not just a high-quality 3rd party thing, I think it can go here. --Konrad13 (talk) 04:02, 11 June 2020 (UTC)
They're apparently going to take the material down forever after August 10, so somebody needs to decide whether or not we're going to add this stuff to this wiki while it's available.--QuietBrowser (talk) 13:39, 19 June 2020 (UTC)
I normally wouldn't bother with archiving that stuff, since there're lots of Backgrounds, for example, that aren't here that they pump out pretty frequently, but the artificial scarcity bullshit has me firmly in favor of putting it here. Fuck their evil FOMO-inciting asses. --SpectralTime (talk) 18:31, 19 June 2020 (UTC)

Exploring Eberron; does it go here?[edit]

So, Keith Baker recently released a new Eberron splatbook called "Exploring Eberron" on the DM's Guild, which is basically advertising itself as 5e's equivalent to... whatever that first big Eberron PC splatbook in 3e was. It includes new takes on Aasimar and Dhakhaani goblinoids, new subraces for Aereni elves and Ruinbound dwarves, gnoll PCs, three new Artificer subclasses (Forge Adept, Maverick, Infuser), the Dirgesinger Bard, the Mind Cleric Domain, the Circle of the Forged druid and the Way of the Living Weapon monk. Does it warrant any detailing on this wiki or what? It was written by the setting's original author, so...where do we stand on it?--QuietBrowser (talk) 21:45, 2 August 2020 (UTC)

I honestly dunno, but giving its own page might not be the worst idea in the world. Just it's not technically a core 5e product, even if people love Keith Baker and it's his baby. --SpectralTime (talk) 04:02, 3 August 2020 (UTC)
Yeah, I think it having its own page would be for the best. --Konrad13 (talk) 09:44, 3 August 2020 (UTC)

Tasha's Cauldron Content[edit]

So, there's been efforts by fans to track down the leaks and teasers for Tasha's Cauldron of Everything, which'll be our big new class-boosting book in the vein of Xanathar's Guide to Everything, so I was wondering if we should be adding that to this page, and if so, where?--QuietBrowser (talk) 01:07, 19 September 2020 (UTC)

So far, we know:

  • There's going to be a total of 27 subclasses in this book; 5 of them are reprinted from older books (Order Cleric Domain, Circle of Spores Druid, College of Eloquence Bard, Oath of Glory Paladin, and Bladesinger, and the other 22 are new (well "new", we've seen most if not all of them in Unearthed Arcana).
  • Confirmed subclasses: College of Creation Bard, Psionics Sorcerer, Armorer [[Artificer], Genie Warlock, Wild Magic Barbarian
  • Artificer will be completely reprinted with "setting neutral" fluff.
I think all of this is as good as chance as any to start moving the stuff to a 5e section of its respective page instead expanding the problem. --Agiletek (talk) 01:42, 19 September 2020 (UTC)

Some big news about future crossover products.[edit]

It was recently announced that they are going to release several new RPG products using the fifth edition system based on several of Hasbro's other owned franchises, starting with a Power Rangers RPG. They will also do Transformers and My Little Pony (even though that one already has an RPG) and more. We should all be really excited about this.--2600:1010:B12A:382A:6565:4FA8:6F71:1D65 19:49, 2 October 2020 (UTC)

"We should all be really excited about this." I suppose that's one possible interpretation. --Piroko (talk) 03:58, 1 November 2020 (UTC)
I wasn't exactly happy myself, but I didn't wanna spoil his fun. --SpectralTime (talk) 04:54, 1 November 2020 (UTC)

Caster Supremacy Section[edit]

That write-up is very poor, and makes a lot of bad-faith arguments and false equivalencies. I'm not saying caster power isn't a thing this edition, but caster supremacy mostly isn't, and even if it is it's not for the reasons that entire write-up keeps asserting. I vote to strike it and replace it with something better thought-out. --SpectralTime (talk) 02:04, 23 April 2021 (UTC)

...Yeah, I gotta agree, this really doesn't make the argument very well. I'm not entirely sure how to best the rewrite, however, because to me, the whole issue can largely be summed up as "went back to the 3.5 style, with a few of the worst abuses plastered over (see: Concentration)".--QuietBrowser (talk) 02:40, 23 April 2021 (UTC)
I mean, even 4e can't totally boast to have solved the problem, simply because ritual casting still existed and still granted those with access to it a degree and breadth of problem solving ability no purely skill-based solution could match. I have come to view it as a totally insoluble problem inherent in the system. But that isn't really what the segment is arguing; it's arguing regarding parity within combat, and doing so poorly at that. --SpectralTime (talk) 07:52, 23 April 2021 (UTC)