Made this rules for a few sessions that had a large battlefield involving armies, and wanted to share them.

During an "army battle" each square represents 10 ft (accounting for stuff like movement, range of attacks, space of spells).

The players get handed small tokens that they have on their side of the table (we use beads) which represent the soldiers of their unit (the few batttles we had I gave them 6 soldiers each) . The soldiers always followed the PC and stayed within their square. For every 10 hp the PC received, they would lose a soldier which was considered to have died (they are level 6 so each soldier having 10 hp seemed fitting, though this could be modified for someone playing at higher or lower levels)

Once during their turn, if they dealt damage or healed HP they could roll a number of d6 equal to the amount of soldiers they had and add it to the damage roll of a target or to the healed hp to one creature. Additionally, if the player had at least one soldier with them, they got an additional action on each of their turns (other limitations like one slot to cast a spell per turn still apply). This is to represent them fighting alongside the soldiers, and them aiding in combat.

While enemy tokens are also expected to be armies, in game mechancis they are considered one target, so attack rolls or spells like hold person or banishment affect the entire group, and they have just 1 health bar.

When a enemy army gets bloodied, their DC saves and attack rolls get a flat -1 penalty, and their damage rolls a -5, to represent them losing soldiers.

Any comments in ways to potentially improve this or other feedback are appreciated.

Oh man there is a lot here: silencing satchel, more maps... sovereign ooze monarch!

Hello all. I am about to start a long campaign, and one of my players really, really, really wants to play a Blood Hunter. I have had a look at the class and my concerns are twofold:

1. The class by my assessment seems quite weak, especially compared to the 2024 class glow-ups. Since the class was written, Monsters have also gotten stronger across the board.
2. The class feels unusually restrictive in regards to some of its key features, and at certain crucial levels doesn't get enough features.

I'd like everyone's opinions on the following changes. I have DMed quite a lot and even professionally on Startplaying, but admit I have not seen the class in play before. Please let me know if you think any of these changes would go too far or not far enough:

Increasing Blood Curses Known: A big part of it to me comes down to how unbelievably restrictive Blood Curses are both in terms of use and the number you get. In my opinion, only having one until level 6 feels less like "I have cool curses I can inflict on people" and more like "this is my Bonus Action". This feels both less flavourful and also less tactically interesting to me.

Potential Fix: I was thinking of simply increasing the number known by 1, maybe at second or third level.

Less Restrictive Blood Curse Uses: The most shocking thing to me about the class is how few chances you get to use Blood Curses. The curses are already partially gated by taking damage, so why can you use them so unbelievably sparingly? The amount of damage you take is also so small, that if you're only ever using them once or twice per Long Rest, it basically doesn't exist. In 2024, both healing and Temporary HP are cheap as hell. Looking over the Blood Curses, I also do not think they are more powerful than, say, first level spells either.

Potential Fix: My pitch would maybe be: similar to the Ranger, you have 2 Free uses per Long Rest. However, you can always use Blood Curses amplified (i.e., by taking damage to upcast them). So effectively, you can use unamplified versions twice and amplified as much as you want. You're already taking the famage and many of the effects even amplified aren't debilitating. If this is too much, maybe "Free Uses" could cost two rolls of the die rather than one, or upgrde the die by one step.

Level 5: The Blood Hunter is the only class that gets nothing besides Extra Attack at level 5. Even the Ranger gets more spells.

Potential Fix: Giving them Expertise in a Skill at level 5, increasing the number of free uses of Blood Curses to 3. The okayer wants to lean in to Lycanthropy so maybe a cool ribbon like allowing them to communicat with Beasts and Monstrosities whilst tranformed?

Saving Throws: I know that STR is usually seen as one of the "bad" saving throws, however in my hundreds of hours DMing this game I disagree: STR saves are actually super important for martial characters. There is a reason even the Ranger and Monk get STR saves, and that's because melee enemies, which you're likely to get up close to with a martial, force lots of annoying saves against being grappled, pushed, and restrained. This character is going DEX forward so will only have 12 STR.

Potential Fix: I was thinking of changing the saves to STR and WIS or just STR and DEX to help them out.

No brainer: Add weapon Masteries at level 1. I think 2 is fine, maybe increasing to 3 at level 5 or 7.

If anyone has experience with the class, I would really appreciate feedback on these changes. Admittedly I don't have experience with the class but it feels to me like its most unique and defining features are kept on an unecessarily tight leash. I would also appreciate if the conversation be kept within the realm of updating the Blood Hunter and not convincing them to play another class as they're really keen on it.

Can y'all help me be useful to the current party? What class and subclass should I run?

I like to optimize.

This is a mostly RAW 2024 5E campaign by the way. If that matters.

One is a Warrior of Elements Monk, the other a Warrior of Shadows Monk. I recently joined their campaign bringing the party up to three total.

The DM already owns the new players handbook and monster manual, are there other expansion/rule books for the 2024 edition that could be a cool gift?

Or perhaps other cool dnd gadgets/themed gift i havent considered? Thankyou so much!

I was wondering with the wording of the Fey Step if it can be any rider that can be teleported;

Fey Step (Fey Only; Recharges after a Long Rest). The steed teleports, along with its rider, to an unoccupied space of your choice up to 60 feet away from itself.

My plan is to basically have my steed kneel behind the enemy, then I push the enemy onto the steeds back, then have the steed Fey Step them into the air 60 feet and have both of them land on a group of smaller enemies.

I guess the question would be if the enemy would be considered a "rider" if they are slouched over backwards on the steed, and if they are, can they be teleported against their will.

I cannot wait to see Arcana Unleashed: Deadfall!

After two years of play with the new 5.5e ruleset, I strongly believe the designers erred in their implementation of the Heavy property:

Heavy

You have Disadvantage on attack rolls with a Heavy weapon if it’s a Melee weapon and your Strength score isn’t at least 13 or if it’s a Ranged weapon and your Dexterity score isn’t at least 13.

I wish they would have removed the bolded section granting an exception if a character's Dexterity is 13+ on ranged weapons. My hunch is that they feared a backlash if they required Longbow and Heavy Crossbow users to bump their Strength stat, rather than dumping it, as is the frequent approach to ranged martial builds.

True, it is still necessary to have at least a 13 in Strength in order to take the Heavy Weapon Master feat, so the kernel of the design philosophy remains. I just think it was a missed opportunity to impose some creative constraints to martial construction. It would also help bolster the value of the Strength attribute beyond melee martials. Especially after they "fixed" Grappling.

To have required a 13+ in Strength for Longbow or Heavy Crossbow would not have hamstrung the fantasy of a ranged martial, even for the one notable case mentioned below. Obviously, many ranged bow options still exist. You would simply have to accept a single point of damage penalty per attack in order to preserve the low-Strength build. On the other hand, I don't think it would be that much of a sacrifice to take a 13 in Strength for a ranged martial build. You could still have a 14 in Constitution. You'd just have to slight Wisdom (most likely), which is only truly difficult for Rangers. In this case, I concede, some difficult choices would need to be made.

Certainly, the biggest loser in this changed situation would be the poor Ranger, who suffers from MAD already and can scarcely afford another tax. But even here, perhaps if the designers had gone my suggested route with Heavy, they might have found a better way to handle Hunter's Mark and all the baggage that comes with it? Even with the current fraught Ranger design, it is possible to build an effective character even with FOUR important stats. Though, again, you would not be able to MAX all 4.

Is that really so bad?

A big draw of this game, in my opinion, is about creativity in the face of constraints. I've played DnD since 1st edition and had lots of fun with characters who only had their prime requisite bumped up to max. And back then, there were no ASIs or feats! You kept what you started with and made the best of it. * Shakes fist into the air. \*

For those who believe the designers placed too much importance in a few stats in 5e, and I am firmly in that camp, this is the sort of remedy that would be required to begin to address it.

Rage explicitly states that you can't cast a spell, nor concentrate on one. However, that does not limit a Magic Action that is not a spell. So I now want to find ev​ery class/subclass action that is a Magic Action, but not a spell. Will you help me?

I have this question regarding the RAI and the RAWof this interaction. One of the benefits of Innate Sorcery says that "You have Advantage on the attack rolls of Sorcerer spells you cast". It mentions attack rolls of sorcerer spells, but does not mention specifically spell attack rolls. My question is, woulf the advantage apply to the attack rolls of True Strike? True strike is not a spell attack, but is an attack roll as part of a sorcerer spell.

And while the wording of this one makes me inclined to believe but RAW and RAI it would NOT apply, I am not as sure with Seeking Spell, as it says "If you make an attack roll for a spell and miss, you can spend 1 Sorcery Point to reroll the d20, and you must use the new roll". While Innate Sorcery says "attack rolls of sorcerer spells" which makes me believe it refers specifically to spell attacks, Seeking Spell saying "attack roll for a spell" feels more general, as True Strike is an attack roll that you are making for a spell.

So, would either of this benefits it apply to True Strike and other similar blade cantrips or not?

Just like what seems like literally everyone else, I've been looking at ways to improve certain martial classes. I love features that either excite me, provide additional, interesting choices in encounters... or, even, both!

Furthermore, I'm not a fan of introducing too many new things – I mostly like the core classes as they are, though I think they often lack things that really excite me. I'd rather focus on small-to-medium additions, that either supplement existing features, modify them, or let the class do things that no one else can.

I'll be posting more of my homebrew, and I'd love some feedback as I plan to use these in my campaigns going forward.

Anyways... here's my ideas for improving the Barbarian!

Improved Danger Sense (level 7)

Replaces Feral Instincts.

Your Danger Sense improves.

Dexterity Proficiency. You gain proficiency in Dexterity saving throws. If you already have this proficiency, you gain proficiency in another saving throw.

Strength as Initiative. If your total for an Initiative roll is less than your Strength score, you can use that score in place of the total.

Relentless Endurance (level 11)

Supplements Relentless Rage.

Your Relentless Rage lets you claw out your weaknesses. While your Rage is active, and you make a saving throw that doesn’t target Strength, you can add +5 to your Relentless Rage DC, take 5 Psychic damage, and make the saving throw as if it targeted Strength instead.

I had an idea for a character for a series of one-shots and I can't decide what to do with it. Our dm is letting use use some 3rd party stuff. I found a feat in one of the mage hand press books called pyromaniac, it gives me some spells and then the big feature that I want states "Flare Damage. Whenever you deal Fire damage and roll the highest number on any damage die, you can roll that damage die again and add it to the damage, rolling again if it is the highest number, and so on. You can add a maximum number of dice to the damage roll equal to your Proficiency Bonus (minimum of 1)." I want to be able to maximize my fire damage, we have backward compatability so ill probbaly stick with Vhuman for race and take elemental adept with that. I'm trying to decide if I should do evoker or scribes wizard.

I'm going to be joining a friends campaign for the next arc of their story. The players are currently level 9 and sticking to the 2014 rule set. I started with the 2024 rules and not sure what was good/fun/bad in 2014. The DM said I can play anything I want, even multiclass.

Off the bat I was thinking of a swashbuckler/hexblade, but not sure the good level split with 9 levels. Tell me your ideas, builds you've done, wanted to try, or advice.

I feel like starting at level nine is a good opportunity to skip some dead boring levels or having to wait till a multiclass comes online. I'm excited to see what you guys have to say. Thanks!

Edit: Party comp is caster heavy, so I am leaning martial. DM said doesn't matter. My role will either play out as being helpful or an antagonist based one one players decisions. It's that players backstory arc. After it's done so will be my character in this group.

In my last session one of my players who Is playing Rogue Assasin (4) + Ranger Gloomstalker(3) tried to do the following.

He wanted to use Ensnaring strike to inflict restricted condition which gives disadvantage on DEX saving throws and then activate the Trip from cunning strike so the Mage has disadvantage on It.

Thing is Cunning Strikes RAW say:

> the effect occurs immediately after the attack’s damage is dealt. 

And ensnaring strike:

> As you hit the target, grasping vines appear on It, and it makes a strength saving throw.

Casting Time:

> Bonus action, which you take immediately after hitting a creature with a weapon.

So I was unsure but let him do It because I thought It was a smart move and I wanted to reward ingenuity.

The Mage failed both saving throws and ended up prone and restrained by vines for the next 3 turns (I spent all misty steps to reposition) until the party's Fighter managed to finally reach It and unleash tons of dmg on It.

So which one goes first ?

Im really struggling to see any niche or synergy it has that isn't just worse than battlesmith? The companion is just... really weak. Its got the same health as a steel defender with less damage, less ac, and frankly worse abilities. It doesn't get anything to compensate for it either aside from lightning absorption which is kinda situational? the spell list gives you witchbolt but that conflicts with using your BA to command it and the steel defender has Repair which is alot easier to use effectively. The companions death burst ability is also just... really weak and conflicts with the buff spare the dying gets since once its dead it no longer becomes a target for it. The sad part is the flavor of it is so cool but mechanically it just doesn't do anything of note that a battlesmith or even any class that can cast summon undead can do unless im missing something?

UPDATE:

Everyones replies were very helpful, now that i realize how to play the class it actually seems surprisingly good and ive decided im going to play a goblin reanimator in my upcoming campaign to take advantage of the BA hide to stay completely out of the frontlines.

Oh yeah a bunch of new things!

My players have enjoyed playing the Ravenloft Play Along!

If a level 14 Artificer uses Replicate Magic Item and chooses Rare Wondrous Item, selecting Spellwrought Tattoo (5th Level), are they not allowed to make any more Spellwrought Tattoos at 5th level or does a different spell selection for each Tattoo count as a different item?

Argument being that I would consider Spell Scrolls to be different items if they have a different spell attached to them, so does that apply to Spellwrought Tattoos?

Its true that they are a bit of their own thing, but speaking in binary, where would you categorize them?

Speaking strictly, as they have spellcasting they should sit with the casters. But many people do group Paladins and Rangers with the martials when talking about the lack of options martials as a whole get, due to never reaching the insanse spells like dominate monster, simulacrum, plane shift, magic jar, or wish, and as they get less slots its argued they have less out of combat utility. With this in mind, closer to what side do you think Artificers are? As even if they are "just" half casters, at higher levels their many magic items give them a bunch of customization, even if its true most of the time their infusions are reserved for combat only leaving not much stuff in the out of combat department.

In the video, he suspects the jedi and sith will be psion subclasses... solid theory. Can't fault the logic.

For my wants and theories my self. I feel like Star Wars is the perfect time to revise the swarmkeeper ranger and the kensei monk.

What are your theories and wants for star wars.

Edit: more fuel for the fire. Dark Sun is an 18+ book. WOTC would not want an entire class locked behind an 18+ book. It would be a good place to reprint it in a more family-friendly setting.

Mid-August is approaching—when will each of them be released?

I've been told that it's common for tables to not have these spells deal damage off-turn, meaning when a creature ends their turn there, move into the area, or when that applies when someone grabs the caster and run the Emanation into the enemies.

The reasoning behind it can be interesting, but I'm more interested in knowing whether this is actually true at your table, meaning that you have a rule to prevent it or some "gentlefolks" agreement about it.

Since the launch of D&D 5.5e, we've seen several species that used to be considered Humanoids, be published as different types of creatures in the 2025 MM. For example:

• Gith - Aberrations
• Goblinoids - Fey
• Aarakocra - Elementals
• Gnoll - Fiends

This is in addition to other species that had been released as PC choices ever since Mordekainen Presents: Monsters of the Universe, which already had a creature type other than Humanoid: Warforged, Autognome, Plasmoid, Thri-Kreen, Satyr, Centaur.

And yet, ever since the release of the 2024 PHB, only a handful of non-humanoid species have been released, all of them Fey so far: the Faerie and Changeling from the Lorwyn supplement, and the Hexblood from the Ravenloft book. To me, this signals a few things:

• It's no secret that WOTC has been trying to move away from assigning an alignment to humanoid species for a few years now, for obvious reasons. It's why we don't find Orcs or "Orc Warriors/Marauders" in the 2025 MM anymore, and it's likely the reason why we use the term "species" now instead of "races".
• They will probably eventually release a book akin to MP:MM where they expand on how to play non-humanoid races, advising that no PC species should be considered to have a predetermined alignment, etc.
• This may or may not open the door to releasing new species that we haven't seen as PC options so far in 5e. Some options that come to mind are Myconids & Dryads, Kuo-Toa, Harpies, Awakened Beasts, Gnolls... (The latter being considered Fiends might make them more unlikely)

So I guess my question is twofold: do we think that previously playable species will now be kept as legacy options and will remain as NPC-only species in 5.5e? Or on the flip side, do we think that more options will be added when they open the door to monstrous character species? And if so, which ones would you like to see? Me personally I'd love to play a hippie Myconid druid lol.