u/MyrthDM

The history of the Realms is filled with wars, divine conflicts, collapsing empires, magical disasters, and political struggles that are often described only in sourcebooks or brief references.

Choose one historical event and give it a full modern novel trilogy.

It could explore the fall of a civilization, the founding of a kingdom, a conflict between deities, the rise of a famous faction, or an event that permanently changed part of Faerûn.

I would be tempted by the fall of Netheril, although it may be even more interesting to focus on a less familiar event whose outcome is not already known by every reader.

Which event would you choose?

Who should be the central characters, and would you want the story told from the perspective of the winners or the people who failed?

The World of Warcraft announcement got me thinking about the larger direction D&D seems to be taking with Universes Beyond.

Personally, WoW is actually an easy sell for me. I’ve played both WoW and D&D for a long time, and Azeroth already has so many things that translate naturally into D&D: dungeons, raids, classes, races, monsters, factions, magic items, and huge fantasy villains.

I genuinely want to play with that book.

And I can also see the appeal of something like Star Wars. Even if I would probably keep it separate from a normal fantasy campaign, the idea of using the D&D ruleset to run a completely different universe could be really fun.

What I’m less sure about is what happens if Universes Beyond becomes a major part of the release schedule rather than an occasional experiment.

At my table, I already tend to decide pretty carefully which books and character options belong in a campaign. If I am running Forgotten Realms, I probably do not want someone simply showing up with a Worgen Demon Hunter because the option technically exists on D&D Beyond.

But at the same time, that is one of the big differences between D&D and something like a card game. Nothing forces me to mix those settings. A World of Warcraft campaign can stay in Azeroth, a Star Wars campaign can stay in its own universe, and my normal D&D campaign never has to interact with either of them.

So part of me thinks crossovers could actually work extremely well for D&D.

My only concern would be if licensed settings started taking up so much of the release schedule that traditional D&D settings and completely original material received less attention.

Where do you land on it?

Are you excited about D&D Universes Beyond?

Would you use crossover character options in a normal 5.5e campaign, or keep each setting separate?

What other universe would you actually want to see adapted?

And at what point, if any, would crossover releases become too much?

The setting has accumulated an enormous number of monsters and strange creatures across novels, adventures, sourcebooks, and different editions.

Some appear constantly, while others seem perfect for memorable encounters but are rarely discussed or used.

What creature deserves far more attention?

It does not need to be uniquely native to the Realms, but it should have an especially interesting place in the setting’s lore, history, or ecology.

What makes it different from a generic monster encounter?

How would you introduce it in a campaign so the players immediately understood why it was special?

I’ve been looking through what is coming in Arcana Unleashed, and the amount of new material for magic-heavy characters is pretty substantial.

There are eight subclasses, including four Wizard schools, lots of new and revised spells, more than 20 feats, and a large collection of magic items. There are martial-adjacent options in there too, like Arcane Archer and Warrior of the Mystic Arts, but the whole book is obviously built around magic.

And to be clear, I think that sounds fun. I am not arguing that a book called Arcana Unleashed somehow has too much magic in it.

It just made me realize how much I would like to see the opposite book eventually.

At my table, I think 5.5e has already done a lot to make martial characters more enjoyable. Weapon Mastery in particular has made a noticeable difference. Martial turns feel less like simply walking up and attacking until something dies, and weapon choice actually creates more tactical decisions than it used to.

But I still think there is a lot of unexplored design space there.

I would love to see a full expansion built around martial characters with new Weapon Masteries, Fighting Styles, martial feats, weapons, armor, maneuvers, nonmagical equipment, high-level martial options, and especially more things for martial characters to do outside combat.

Not necessarily just "give Fighters spells without calling them spells," either. I would want systems that actually lean into being exceptionally skilled, strong, fast, tactical, intimidating, resourceful, or legendary without magic being the answer to everything.

So if Arcana Unleashed is effectively the big magic expansion for 5.5e, would you want a martial equivalent next?

And if so, what would you actually put in it?

More subclasses and feats?

Expanded Weapon Mastery?

A maneuver system available to more classes?

Better mundane equipment and crafting?

More out-of-combat abilities for martials?

Or do you think the 2024 PHB already did enough to close that gap?

You must work with one established villain to prevent a disaster that threatens both of you.

They cannot simply betray you immediately, because they also need the mission to succeed. However, once the danger has passed, the agreement ends and they return to being exactly who they were before.

Who would be the most effective and least disastrous temporary ally?

Jarlaxle could be useful, but every part of the agreement would probably benefit him in a way you failed to notice. Manshoon would be terrifying but extremely capable. Szass Tam might genuinely save the world if losing it interfered with his plans.

Who would you choose?

What precautions would you take before accepting their help?

The Ranger has probably been one of the most debated classes throughout 5E, so I was really curious to see whether the revised version would finally make it feel complete.

There are a lot of changes I genuinely like. The class gets more spells, better mobility, Weapon Mastery, Expertise, and free uses of Hunter’s Mark. On paper, it feels more capable and much smoother than the original 2014 Ranger.

But I’m still unsure about building so much of the class around Hunter’s Mark.

At my table, our Ranger felt great during a fight against one large monster. They marked it early, kept landing attacks, and the extra damage felt reliable without costing their limited spell slots. In that kind of encounter, Hunter’s Mark worked exactly as intended.

The awkwardness became more obvious during a fights with several weaker enemies.

The Ranger kept spending their Bonus Action to move the mark from one target to the next as enemies went down. They also considered using Spike Growth to control a narrow passage, but doing that would mean dropping Hunter’s Mark and giving up the spell that the class keeps encouraging them to use.

The general sentiment was: If another concentration spell is better here, why does so much of the class keep pointing back toward Hunter’s Mark?

That summed up my mixed feelings pretty well.

Hunter’s Mark is a useful and thematic spell, especially at lower levels. But there is a difference between giving the Ranger a reliable option and making that option feel like the central answer to how the class is supposed to play.

So how has the revised Ranger worked at your table?

Does Hunter’s Mark feel like a useful baseline, or like a tax on the Ranger’s concentration and Bonus Action?

Are Rangers actually using their other concentration spells regularly?

And overall, do you think 5.5E fixed the Ranger, even if the Hunter’s Mark design is still awkward?

Baldur’s Gate has now received several major games, but the Realms contain many other places that could support a large story with companions, factions, exploration, and meaningful choices.

You can choose one city or region for a new story-driven RPG.

Would you pick Waterdeep and its political factions? Cormyr during a succession crisis? The Moonsea with Zhentarim intrigue? The Dalelands surrounded by old ruins? The Sea of Fallen Stars? Thay? The Underdark?

My first choice would probably be the Moonsea. It has recognizable factions, dangerous cities, ancient ruins, and enough moral ambiguity to support very different player choices.

Which location would you choose?

What would the main conflict be, and which faction would inevitably become involved?

Imagine describing the identity of the setting without relying on Drizzt, Elminster, Baldur’s Gate, Waterdeep, or another famous character or location.

What is the essential ingredient that makes a campaign feel like it belongs in the Forgotten Realms rather than in a generic fantasy world?

Is it the way the gods are woven into daily life? The layers of fallen civilizations beneath every kingdom? The countless competing factions? The mixture of enormous magical events and very local problems? The sense that history continues to move even when the player characters are elsewhere?

For me, it is the layered history. Almost every road, ruin, border, and political conflict seems connected to several older civilizations and grudges.

What one element would you preserve above everything else?

I completely understand why Divine Smite needed some kind of limitation in 5.5E.

In 2014, a Paladin could spend several spell slots in one turn, especially after a critical hit, and sometimes remove an important enemy before the encounter had a chance to develop.

Limiting that kind of burst damage seems reasonable.

But I’m less convinced that turning Divine Smite into a Bonus Action spell was the best way to do it.

Just the other day at my table, the Paladin used Lay on Hands to bring an unconscious ally back into the fight, then attacked and rolled a critical hit.

The player immediately reached for the extra Smite dice, then realized they had already spent their Bonus Action on Lay on Hands and could not use Divine Smite.

I’m currently DMing Curse of Strahd for a party of only three characters, so I think the player felt the restriction even more than they might have in a larger group. With so few characters, every turn and every opportunity to deal significant damage can matter a lot.

Their reaction was basically, “So I did the Paladin thing by saving someone, rolled the perfect Paladin critical hit, and now I can’t smite because both abilities use the same Bonus Action?”

It was still a good turn. They rescued another character and landed a critical hit. But it also felt strange that two of the class’s most iconic abilities were competing for the same part of the action economy.

On the other hand, I have also run encounters under the 2014 rules where a Paladin landed multiple attacks, spent several slots, and erased a boss much faster than I expected. I do not particularly miss having to design major enemies around the possibility of one enormous Smite turn.

So I can see why the limitation exists.

I’m just not sure whether Divine Smite needed to become a Bonus Action, or whether simply limiting it to once per turn would have solved the main problem without making the class feel more crowded.

How has it felt at your table?

Does the Bonus Action cost create meaningful decisions?

Does it interfere too much with Lay on Hands, feats, spells, and subclass abilities?

Does the revised Smite still feel satisfying when the Paladin lands a critical hit?

Or do you think controlling Paladin burst damage was worth the extra restriction?

A setting with this much history will inevitably contain events, characters, timelines, and cosmological changes that some DMs would rather handle differently.

I am not looking for a declaration that an entire edition is terrible. I am interested in one specific piece of lore that you deliberately rewrite, ignore, reverse, or replace when running the Realms.

It could be the fate of a city or character, the return or death of a deity, a historical event, the treatment of a particular nation, the current date, the structure of the planes, or something much smaller.

What do you change?

What do you replace it with, and why does your version work better for your campaign?

Counterspell is one of those spells that could completely change the mood of an encounter in 2014.

Sometimes that was exciting, but other times it turned an important spell into an automatic “no,” or started a chain where one caster countered another caster’s Counterspell.

I understand what the 2024 version is trying to improve. The original caster now makes a Constitution saving throw, so Counterspell is no longer guaranteed to work, and a successfully countered caster does not lose the spell slot. That makes it less absolute and gives the targeted caster more of a chance to resist it.

But the first few times we used it at my table produced very mixed reactions.

I still remember the first time the new Counterspell came up. The Wizard used it against an enemy casting an upcast Confusion, which could have completely changed the encounter if it landed.

Under the 2014 rules, stopping a higher-level spell would not have been automatic either, but at least the Wizard would have made the ability check themselves. This time, the enemy made the Constitution save, passed, and Confusion still went off.

The Wizard had spent both a spell slot and their Reaction without changing anything. The player’s immediate response was basically, “Wait, so I spend the slot and my Reaction, and nothing happens?”

They were even more disappointed when they realized that upcasting Counterspell would not have helped. Whether they used a third-level slot or a higher-level one, the enemy would still make the same Constitution saving throw against the same save DC. Their reaction was essentially, “So I cannot even spend a stronger slot to make it more reliable?”

Mechanically, I understand the reasoning. Counterspell should not necessarily be an automatic answer to every dangerous spell. But putting the roll in the target’s hands, while also removing any benefit from upcasting, made it feel much less satisfying from the counterspelling side. This was especially noticeable when the spell they were trying to stop was considerably more powerful than the resource they had spent.

On the other hand, when a player is successfully counterspelled, I can see why the new version feels healthier. They still lose the action, which definitely hurts, but keeping the spell slot makes the interruption less punishing. A single enemy Reaction no longer removes both their turn and one of their best resources.

So I can see both sides.

The new version feels healthier when Counterspell is used against players, but sometimes less rewarding when players spend a slot to use it themselves.

How has it worked at your table?

Does the Constitution save make Counterspell more interactive?

Does keeping the interrupted spell slot make it too weak?

Should upcasting Counterspell make it more reliable?

Are players still preparing it regularly?

Or did the old version need to be powerful because Counterspell is already such a situational use of a spell slot and Reaction?

This is not about which faction is objectively the strongest, most heroic, or best written.

Which faction can return throughout a campaign as an ally, rival, patron, employer, antagonist, or temporary partner without every appearance feeling the same?

The Harpers can provide information and secret allies. The Zhentarim can range from ruthless local criminals to politically useful partners. The Red Wizards can appear almost anywhere through trade, espionage, and magical ambition. Religious organizations and regional factions can be even more flexible when the campaign remains in one area.

My answer is probably the Zhentarim because different cells and individual members can have very different goals, while still belonging to a recognizable organization.

Which faction has been the most useful in your campaigns?

What is the most interesting role you have given it?

Faerûn is built on the ruins of civilizations that believed they would last forever.

I am not asking which empire was the largest, most powerful, or most interesting at its height. Which fallen civilization left behind the greatest capacity to threaten the modern Realms?

That threat could come from surviving magic, descendants, ancient enemies, unfinished rituals, buried weapons, lost gods, escaped creations, or a faction attempting to restore the old empire.

Netheril is the obvious candidate, but Imaskar, Jhaamdath, Narfell, Raumathar, Miyeritar, Delzoun, and many less famous civilizations all left dangerous legacies behind.

Which civilization would you choose?

What single discovery connected to it could support an entire campaign?

This is not necessarily about which famous character you dislike. I am wondering which one is most difficult for a DM to include well.

Characters such as Elminster, Laeral Silverhand, Drizzt, the Seven Sisters, and other legendary figures can make the world feel connected to the wider Realms.

At the same time, their power, knowledge, and reputation can make the player characters seem strangely unimportant. If one of these heroes is already present and aware of the danger, the players may reasonably wonder why they are being asked to solve it.

Elminster is probably the most difficult one for me. A brief appearance can be memorable, but an active Elminster can answer too many questions and solve too many problems.

Which famous character do you think is hardest to use without stealing the party’s story?

Have you found a good role for them as a patron, obstacle, unreliable ally, distant influence, or something else?

Imagine that a new 300-page Forgotten Realms setting book has been approved, but it cannot focus on the Sword Coast.

It must cover one region in detail, with an updated map, settlements, factions, important NPCs, recent history, adventure locations, and enough material to support an entire campaign.

You cannot use the book to provide a few pages on every part of Faerûn. You have to choose one region and give it the full treatment.

Cormyr and its borderlands? The Dalelands? The Moonsea? The Sea of Fallen Stars? The Unapproachable East? The Old Empires? The Shining South? Somewhere farther away?

My first instinct is the Sea of Fallen Stars, although it might still be too large for a single focused book.

Which region would you choose, and what are the three things the book absolutely must include?

The obvious question is which evil god is the worst. I am more interested in which one could make the most convincing first offer.

Imagine that you are not an adventurer or powerful spellcaster. You are an ordinary person dealing with debt, grief, fear, injustice, illness, or the need to protect your family.

Bane can promise order and control. Mask can offer wealth or survival. Umberlee can promise safe passage. Shar can offer relief from unbearable memories. Even faiths that appear monstrous from the outside may begin with something a desperate person genuinely wants.

Which evil deity has the most believable path from an ordinary worshipper to a committed follower?

What would the initial promise be, and what is the first hidden cost that the new worshipper would fail to notice?

One thing I’ve noticed more in 5.5E is how much the opening round can shape the entire encounter.

Going first was always useful, but between stronger opening turns, battlefield control, the new Alert feat, and the ability to swap Initiative with another party member, it sometimes feels like Initiative has become another resource for the group to optimize.

At my table, one player has Alert, and the Initiative swap has mattered more than I expected. There have been fights where they rolled high and swapped with the Wizard, allowing a control spell like Web or Hypnotic Pattern to land before the enemies could spread out or engage the party.

The encounter was not technically over, but it already felt heavily decided before several creatures had taken a turn.

In another fight, the same player gave the higher Initiative to a martial character so they could reach a doorway first and stop enemies from moving through it. That was a genuinely fun tactical moment, and I like that Alert can create teamwork instead of simply giving one character a bigger number.

But I’m starting to wonder whether going first matters a little too much now, especially for characters who can reshape the battlefield immediately. A controller acting before everyone else can be much more valuable than a damage dealer simply attacking earlier.

It can also make the start of combat feel like a small optimization phase, with everyone discussing who should take which Initiative position before the first turn even begins.

So how has it worked at your table?

Has Initiative become more important in 5.5E?

Does the Alert swap create interesting teamwork, or does it make the opening round too easy to optimize?

Have you had encounters that were effectively decided because one side won Initiative?

Or do you think turn-order manipulation adds exactly the kind of tactical depth the game needed?

One part of the 2024 rules that I do not see discussed as much as combat changes is the Influence action and the clearer structure for social interactions.

In theory, I like having more guidance.

At my table, social encounters in 2014 could sometimes swing between two extremes. Occasionally we would roleplay the entire conversation without touching the dice. Other times, a complicated negotiation would suddenly come down to one Persuasion check, with the DC mostly based on whatever felt appropriate to me in that moment.

The 2024 approach gives me a clearer framework. Thinking about whether an NPC is Friendly, Indifferent, or Hostile, what they would reasonably agree to, and whether a roll is even necessary makes social scenes easier for me to adjudicate consistently.

I have also found that it helps when players ask for something that no Persuasion roll should realistically accomplish. A high result might improve the NPC’s attitude or earn a compromise, but it does not automatically turn persuasion into mind control.

At the same time, I worry that making Influence a defined action can make social interaction feel more mechanical than it needs to be.

I do not really want conversations to become:

“I take the Influence action.”

“Okay, roll Persuasion.”

I still want the players’ approach, arguments, leverage, and roleplaying to shape what is possible before the dice are rolled.

So how has it worked at your table?

Has the Influence action made social encounters clearer and easier to run?

Do you actively track NPC attitudes?

Has it helped prevent Persuasion from being treated like mind control?

Or do you mostly ignore the formal structure and run conversations the same way you did in 2014?

Not as an adventurer, noble, archmage, or chosen of a god. You are an ordinary person with an ordinary job, a family, and very little ability to defend yourself.

Which city would offer the worst combination of danger, corruption, oppressive rulers, monsters, and general daily misery?

Menzoberranzan feels like the obvious answer, so I am especially interested in alternatives.

Baldur’s Gate? Luskan? Zhentil Keep? Westgate? Somewhere even worse?

After several years of inactivity, r/Forgottenrealms is open for new posts again.

The goal is not to compete with or replace other Forgotten Realms communities. I would simply like to rebuild this subreddit as another welcoming place for people interested in the Realms.

Lore discussions, novels, video games, campaign ideas, maps, characters, deities, factions, old editions, obscure locations, artwork and questions from newcomers are all welcome.

Over the next few weeks, I will be posting regular discussion topics to get things moving again.

Feel free to introduce yourself below:

How did you first discover the Forgotten Realms, and which part of the setting made you stay?