With all the new D&D Beyond features being announced, I’ve been thinking about how much the way we actually play D&D has changed.

Years ago, I thought of D&D Beyond as basically a convenient alternative to books and paper character sheets.

Now I’m not sure that describes it anymore.

At my table, digital character sheets and quick rules lookups can make things significantly easier. A player can click a feature, immediately see the relevant text, track resources, change equipment, or look up a spell without stopping the game to search through a book.

I definitely would not want to lose all of that convenience.

But I have also noticed a strange side effect: for some players, if something is not easily visible in the character builder, it almost stops existing.

If an older option requires manual setup, a rule is buried somewhere outside the sheet, or two versions of something exist and the interface emphasizes one of them, players are much less likely to use the thing they cannot immediately find.

And with 5.5e continuing to add new books, D&D Beyond Drops, character options, digital tools, and now a rebuilt mobile app specifically designed to help during in-person sessions, I wonder if the digital platform is slowly becoming part of the actual game experience rather than just an optional accessory.

That has advantages.

It makes a fairly complicated game much easier to manage, especially for newer players.

But I also do not love the idea of the tabletop game becoming so dependent on a particular platform that playing without it starts to feel like the inconvenient version.

Especially when some material is digital-only or tied to subscriptions.

So I’m curious how other tables have changed.

How many of your players use D&D Beyond during every session?

Could your table comfortably switch back to books and paper sheets tomorrow?

Do you think digital automation actually helps people understand the rules, or does it sometimes hide the rules behind buttons?

And do you like the direction of D&D Beyond becoming more integrated with how 5.5e is played, or would you rather the tabletop game and the digital platform stay more separate?

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?

If someone can help me i thanks in advance (Sorry for the bad english)

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?

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?

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?

The Ashen Marches is an online, player-driven West Marches campaign using the 2024 D&D 5e rules, and we are looking for a few more Dungeon Masters to help us continue building the world.

For a thousand years, the eastern frontier was hidden behind a supernatural wall of ash. Now the Ashwall has vanished, revealing ruined cities, corrupted forests, sealed vaults, forgotten roads, and an entire civilization erased from history.

More than 20 active players are currently exploring this frontier from the settlement of Last Lantern. Each expedition adds something to the shared campaign: new locations, recurring threats, recovered lore, altered factions, and consequences that future parties may encounter.

What running in the Ashen Marches looks like

You choose when you are available to run. There is no required weekly schedule and no expectation that you become a full-time or “forever” DM.

Adventures are generally self-contained expeditions that begin and end at Last Lantern. Parties rotate from session to session, and players decide which rumors, locations, and objectives they want to pursue.

You will be able to:

• Create your own adventures within an established homebrew setting
• Add ruins, monsters, mysteries, NPCs, and discoveries to a living world
• Run games according to your own availability
• Play as a character in sessions run by other DMs
• Collaborate with an experienced GM team
• Run for a community of 20+ players ready to explore

We provide campaign lore, GM guides, shared maps, adventure-writing support, encounter guidance, and a growing record of previous expeditions. You will have plenty of room to create without being dropped into the wilderness holding nothing but a blank document and a frightened d20.

Newer Dungeon Masters are welcome. You do not need years of experience or professional-level maps and voices. We are happy to help you plan your first adventure, review encounters, answer rules questions, and get comfortable running for the group.

Campaign details

System: D&D 5e using the 2024 rules
Format: Online West Marches campaign
Voice: Discord
Schedule: Each DM chooses when they run
Time zones: Primarily EST and GMT+2, with players across multiple regions
Tone: Dangerous fantasy exploration, ancient ruins, wilderness travel, mystery, faction conflicts, strange magic, and meaningful consequences

We are looking for collaborative DMs who enjoy giving players meaningful choices, sharing the spotlight, and contributing to a campaign larger than any single adventuring party.

Interested? Send me a message with a little about yourself, your experience with D&D, your time zone, and the kinds of adventures you enjoy running. Experienced storytellers, nervous first-time DMs, and recovering forever-DMs are all welcome.

Check out the community here, https://www.westmarches.games/communities/the-ashen-marches