r/DungeonsAndDragons55e

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?

Something I've been thinking about is how to handle Horde and Alliance characters in the same party.

Back in older WoW, the faction divide was much stricter. Playing together across factions simply wasn't really a thing, and depending on when your campaign is set, having an Orc, Human, Forsaken, and Night Elf casually adventuring together could feel very strange from a lore perspective.

Modern WoW is obviously much more flexible about this, with the factions cooperating far more often and cross-faction gameplay becoming increasingly normal.

Of course, the era your campaign takes place in makes a huge difference. A campaign set during the Third War or early WoW might justify much stronger restrictions than one set in the current timeline.

I'm not sure yet how strict I'd want to be. Part of me likes preserving that faction identity and making Horde vs. Alliance actually matter, but at the same time I don't really want to tell someone they can't play the character they're excited about just because another player picked the opposite faction.

How are you planning to handle it in your campaign?

View Poll

English is not my native language, so sorry if you see some errors.

I'm making a build that is working pretty well with a fighter 1 warlock fiend 6. The build is pretty basic, it uses the cantrip that creates a magical pebble that i can put on a sling and throw (my DM is pretty chill and let me have the cantrip besides it being from 5.0) so far the maximum bonus damage i could arrange was 1d8 + 1d6 (true strike) + 1d6 (Hex) + 10. But i want to increase the damage bonus higher, any tip? Regarding the damage dice someone have better options than true strike + Hex?

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?

This may be a bit of a silly question but obviously when you are running a DnD session there are certain rules and mechanics a DM has to follow.

I’ve potentially had a bit of an epiphany as a DM. When I run my sessions I like to be fully prepared to the extent I want to know what town the players are in, what’s in that town - potential hooks laid out and also loot and all other gear, shops and food etc. also plans for if the players go “off trail”.

Being honest, how “on the fly” are people when running their sessions? When I say that, do people genuinely just make stuff up trying to be consistent? And if so where do you draw the line? I’m starting to realise I need to go WAY more “along with it” and less every detail planned out. Maybe with a loose session plan.

The other big question is regarding loot - right now I’ll go through the PHB and DM guide for ages trying to find exactly the right treasure for the players to potentially find in the session. Being honest, can I just make this up? Like if I want the players to find a magic amulet - is it normal for me to just “come up with that” and almost create this magic item even though it’s not in the books and if so how do I associate stats etc with that?

And even after that when in combat - should I always have the MM to my side to find stat blocks for creatures my players could maybe face?

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?

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?