Talk:Dungeons & Dragons 5th Edition
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.
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. 126.96.36.199 18:34, 19 March 2015 (UTC)
Yo someone make a table of all the races/sub-races instead of the mess it is now.
Hey, someone has to ask it.
- 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
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
Frankly, I don't like or agree with 188.8.131.52'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 184.108.40.206 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)
Witch Hunter class?
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.220.127.116.11 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
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)
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.