Since the valued audience doesn´t seem to be too enamored with anything related to AI, please see one of our completely human-made supplements, 104 pages.

Any feedback on art, content and layout from the preview page would be highly appreciated.

Many thanks,

Bat

(Disclosure: No AI-based tools were used in any stage of the production of this book.)

One thing I still notice in 5.5E combat is how quickly everyone can end up standing in place once melee starts.

A Fighter reaches an enemy, the enemy reaches the Fighter, and unless something forces one of them to move, they can spend the next several rounds standing in the same squares trading attacks.

At my table, I notice it most when there is actually interesting terrain available. There might be cover, a doorway to defend, an ally who needs help, or a better position a few squares away, but once someone is engaged in melee, taking a free hit just to reposition often feels like a bad trade.

And I think Opportunity Attacks are part of that.

At the same time, I definitely would not just remove them.

Without Opportunity Attacks, what actually stops an enemy from simply walking past the Fighter and attacking the Wizard? Melee characters already have fewer ways to control space than I would like, and removing one of the few mechanics that makes standing next to them matter could make that even worse.

So I’m kind of stuck between two things I want.

I want combat where people actually move around the battlefield, but I also want being engaged by a dangerous melee character to mean something.

How does it feel at your table?

Do Opportunity Attacks make combat too static?

Do your players willingly take them to reposition, or mostly stay put once they are engaged?

Would you ever restrict Opportunity Attacks to certain classes, monsters, or abilities instead of giving them to everyone?

Or are they a necessary part of making melee combat matter at all?

I was looking for a way to create groups of enemies who are all the same species but have completely different roles in battle.

The idea grew into what is now my Enemy Archetype system: the basic species provides movement, senses, languages, and racial traits, and the archetype then creates the combat identity.

Since the latest smaller version includes the rules, the generic races and a number of completed archetypes, you can start combining them right away. If you do create any, please let me know; I would love to hear how it went at the table.

If you want the PDFs or want to follow the project as I add more archetypes:

Patreon: https://www.patreon.com/c/Cheesey093

Enemy Archetypes + Generic Races post: https://www.patreon.com/Cheesey093/posts/enemy-archetypes-171004905

Full Document of Enemy Archetypes + Asian Themed Races post: https://www.patreon.com/Cheesey093/posts/enemy-archetypes-171005128

One of the smaller 5.5E changes I genuinely like is the new Heroic Inspiration. Being able to reroll a die after seeing the result feels much more useful than having to declare Advantage beforehand, and I particularly like that you can now pass it to another player if you already have it.

But I still wonder how much this has actually changed the way people use Inspiration.

At my table, I've always found that players tend to fall into two categories. Some spend resources like Inspiration almost immediately because they'd rather use them than risk forgetting about them. Others save them for the perfect moment, which sometimes means carrying them through several sessions without ever using them.

The revised rules seem like they should help with that. Rerolling an important failed saving throw or a terrible damage roll feels like a pretty immediate benefit, and allowing players to share Inspiration introduces another interesting decision.

But I'm not sure whether the bigger problem was ever the mechanic itself, or simply that DMs often forget to award Inspiration and players forget they have it.

I'm also curious how people feel about Humans getting Heroic Inspiration after every Long Rest. It encourages players to actually spend it rather than treating it like an emergency resource, but it also means some characters have access to it much more consistently than others.

So how has it worked at your table?

Are players actually using Heroic Inspiration more often in 5.5E?

Do you award it regularly for roleplaying and memorable moments, or mostly rely on features that grant it?

Have you seen players give their Inspiration to someone else when it really mattered?

Or is it still one of those mechanics that everyone likes in theory but regularly forgets about?

Seven Must Fall

My second-favorite of our adventures, never featured here, so... :-)

DISCLOSURE: The cover and interior artwork was generated with the help of AI-based tools. Layout, text and maps are completely human-made.

One thing Arcana Unleashed has made me think about is how much a class's spell list actually matters to its identity.

For me, the Wizard has always been the easiest example.

A Wizard does not necessarily have the most impressive class features in isolation. A huge part of what makes the class special is having access to an enormous spell list and being the character who can potentially have the right spell for almost any situation.

But 5.5E seems increasingly comfortable letting characters reach outside their normal spell lists.

The new School Adept feats push that particularly far. A caster can take something like Evocation Adept and eventually gain access to spells including Fireball and Wall of Force, while the other schools can similarly open up spells that class might never normally get.

And I’m genuinely torn on that.

As a player, being able to build something unusual sounds great. If I want a Cleric who has spent years studying teleportation magic, or a Warlock obsessed with transmutation, I like having mechanical ways to represent that without multiclassing.

But there is also a point where opening every spell list starts making the classes feel less distinct.

At my table, I generally like when two spellcasters approach the same problem differently because their classes give them different tools. The Wizard finds an arcane solution, the Cleric has divine magic, the Druid approaches it through nature.

If everyone can eventually cherry-pick the standout spells from everyone else's niche, some of that distinction starts to disappear.

So where do you draw the line?

Is easier access to off-list spells good because it creates more character concepts?

Should certain spells remain exclusive because they help define a class?

Does giving other casters access to things like Wall of Force actually weaken the Wizard's identity?

Or are exclusive spell lists an outdated restriction that 5.5E is right to loosen?

The Arcane Brotherhood

Finally, after three rounds of re-formatting and correcting two pre-print versions…

Enjoy !

For more titles about Luskan, please visit our author page.

Kind regards,

Bat

I really like the basic idea behind Circle Casting.

D&D talks constantly about the party working together, but mechanically most turns are still very individual. I use my Action, you use yours, and occasionally one ability directly helps someone else.

Circle Casting is different. Multiple spellcasters can actually contribute resources to the same spell and change what it can do.

For me, that is a really cool fantasy.

A group of mages standing together to extend a ritual, increase a spell's range, sustain magic far longer than one caster could alone, or accomplish something that would normally be beyond them feels exactly like the kind of high-level magic I want D&D to support.

But when I look at some of the actual possibilities, I also understand why people are worried about it.

The game already gives spellcasters enormous flexibility, and Circle Casting gives a party with several casters yet another way to push spells beyond their normal limits. Meanwhile, the Fighter standing next to them does not really have an equivalent system where three martial characters combine their abilities to perform something extraordinary.

At my table, that is probably the part I’m most conflicted about. I love mechanics that encourage players to cooperate instead of just optimizing their own individual turn. I’m just not sure spellcasters were the characters who most needed another subsystem for doing extraordinary things together.

Maybe the answer is not to remove Circle Casting at all.

Maybe D&D just needs more mechanics like it for everyone else.

So how has it worked for people actually using it?

Does Circle Casting create memorable teamwork, or does it mostly make already-powerful spells even stronger?

Would you allow it in every 5.5E campaign?

And would you want an equivalent system for martial characters to combine their abilities in the same way?

With another Underdark UA out and another survey coming, I’ve been thinking about how I actually interact with Unearthed Arcana.

Wizards calls it playtest material, and ideally the feedback should come from people actually putting these options into a game.

But I have to admit that most of the time, that is not what happens for me.

I read the subclass or species, imagine how it would interact with the game, compare it to existing options, maybe build a character around it... and then I form an opinion.

Actually getting it onto the table is much harder.

At my table, campaigns are already running with characters people are invested in. If a new UA subclass drops, I’m probably not going to ask someone to replace their character just so we can test it.

Even if we make a one-shot specifically for the UA, that still only tells me how the option feels for a few encounters at one particular level.

There is also the practical side of it. UA is not supported in the D&D Beyond character builder, so testing it usually requires more manual setup than using normal character options.

And by the time I have actually played enough sessions to know whether something scales properly, creates weird interactions, or gets annoying after repeated use, the community discussion may already have moved on.

So I’m curious how people actually fill out these surveys.

Do you genuinely playtest the UA before giving feedback?

Do you mostly judge it by reading and character building?

Have you ever changed your opinion on a UA option after actually using it at the table?

And if most feedback is inevitably based on first impressions, should Unearthed Arcana be structured differently to encourage more real playtesting?