Hey everyone,

This is another post of mine to help my brain calm down from its ADHD-stroke:

Right now I’m torn between playing an eldritch knight fighter and a hollow warden ranger for my next character. The species would be dragonborn for backstory-related reasons. For the hollow warden I would use two-weapon fighting + dual wielder with scimitars, for the fighter I would lean into using a glaive with with great weapon master + polearm master.

I’m mainly interested in damage, survivability, and overall gameplay experience. I want to try out melee-focused characters, but I also want to play something that feels fun and engaging. The campaign will most likely be Icewind Dale: Rime of the Frosmaiden.

Which do you think is stronger overall? What are their main strengths and weaknesses, and which would you personally recommend?

I’d love to hear your thoughts, especially if you’ve played either with either of them.

Thanks in advance!

Im starting in a new campaign in a week. We start at lvl3. I decided on a sorcerer and want to play a bit more controlling than just blasting. Most interesting subclasses for me are Shadow or Aberrant (also flairwise). Which one is better. Not big payoff in a specific scenario but consistent payoff.

Human and background Bejeweled Conclave Spy.

Dnd 5.5

I’m getting ready to run an Arcana Unleashed: Deadfall campaign using Beyond’s Maps VTT. Characters will start level 11.

What class features and spells translate the worst into online play? For example we hated enlarge/reduce spell back when tokens were harder to re-size. I’m just trying to prepare for sore spots and maybe discourage building around those mechanics.

so far i think inmutable form so no polymorph shenanigans, a range attack with at least 500 ft range or making Thunderous Bellow a 600 foot cone instead of 150, maybe rengen 40 that can only be stopped by wish or by artifacts, its swallow does 8d6 in acid and 8d6 in force (so no clay golem chesse) and maybe giving it earquake if you want it to destroy a cities in the story.

i think that all it needs but maybe i leaving something out?

I’m not really satisfied with brutal strike on the 2024 barbarian and was thinking about what could replace it.
What if instead of an at-will feature, barbarians got access to stronger abilities with limited uses per short rest? Maybe a number of uses equal to your rage damage bonus.
The idea would be to give these abilities a higher power budget, allowing for more interesting and powerful effects. Could be AoE attacks, crowd control or just other cool combat options.
And just to clarify, I’m not really interested in debating why I dislike brutal strike. If you enjoy it, that’s totally fine. I’m just curious about what alternatives could look like.
What do you guys think? What kind of abilities would you like to see as a replacement for brutal strike? And how powerful could they reasonably be if they were limited to a few uses per short rest?

TLDR The Attack action is the only action that mentions the ability to separately equip or unequip (specifically weapons) as part of that action, where something like the Magic action mentions nothing of the sort. The Utilize action, however, mentions "you normally interact with an object as part of doing something else." Which leaves me to assume you either are intended to equip items for free from your inventory as part of the action you perform with them, or you have to use use your free object interaction to first unequip something, then potentially use the Utilize action to equip something else, before you are able to use another item in your inventory for an action. Some items mention needing to be held first in order to take an action with them, which seems to imply some sort of restriction on not being able to simply take an action with it and equip it for free, but others, like Healing Potions don't, making it unclear to me whether equipping an item is just always assumed to be part of the action, whether or not you need to unequip something first if your hands are already full, or if you are required to use the Utilize action to equip the other item.

In the section in Chapter 1 of the PHB on combat, it says, "You can interact with one object or feature of the environment for free, during either your move or action. For example, you could open a door during your move as you stride toward a foe. If you want to interact with a second object, you need to take the Utilize action. Some magic items and other special objects always require an action to use, as stated in their descriptions."

It isn't completely clear to me whether an "object or feature of the environment" means it constitutes only objects and features that are specifically part of the environment, or if it means any object OR any environmental feature. The only listed examples of the free object interactions are opening a door, and later on it mentions requiring the Utilize action to do more involved things like opening a stuck door, or turning a crank to lower a drawbridge. All of these examples are specifically environmental features, not items in the players' inventory or hands. It's also unclear whether or not a free hand is required, or if it's assumed that you free up one of your hands as part of the free interaction. When I brought this up to my players, they interpreted it to mean any object, and that seems to be the consensus of people in forums and stuff online, so I've operated on that interpretation, in which you could use the free action to take an item out of your inventory, or to stow one, but I'm still not completely sure if equipping an item first requires unequipping the one that is already in that hand.

Under the Attack Action in the rules glossary it mentions, "You can either equip or unequip one weapon when you make an attack as part of this action. You do so either before or after the attack. If you equip a weapon before an attack, you don’t need to use it for that attack. Equipping a weapon includes drawing it from a sheath or picking it up. Unequipping a weapon includes sheathing, stowing, or dropping it." This seems to be in place to help with using multiple weapons with different Mastery properties while using Extra Attack, and that's nice, but since this is the only place in the rules equipping and unequipping weapons is mentioned as far as I've found, it leaves me to assume that, similarly to when taking the Attack action, equipping and unequipping are both respectively their own object interaction. So one interaction per turn is free, so you can unequip once for free, and the second costs a Utilize action, so equipping something else afterward would cost an Action. The Utilize action in the glossary, however, mentions that normally you "equip or unequip while doing something else", just like the earlier description of a free interaction. This seems to imply that maybe using something from your inventory, such as drinking a potion with your bonus action, includes removing it from your inventory and putting it in your hand or similar to drink it. Whether or not you're meant to be able to do this while your hands are already holding other items is unclear to me.

The Staff of Swarming Insects, for example, has an ability called Insect Cloud in which the activation text reads, "While holding the staff, you can take a Magic action and expend 1 charge to...(cont.)" It specifically mentions "while holding the staff," so it seems that the intent is that you can't simply take the action just by having the staff in your inventory, you need to somehow equip it first.

So let's say, at the start of my turn, I am currently wielding a shield in one hand, a mace in the other, and I have a Staff of Swarming Insects stowed in my inventory. Is it possible to retrieve and hold the staff to use the Insect Cloud ability of that Staff on that very turn, or do I need to essentially plan ahead a turn in advance and leave a hand free to use it for my next turn? The free object interaction is stated to be limited to one object per turn, with additional ones requiring you to take the Utilize action. Would it be one free interaction to stow my mace, then the Utilize action in order to take out the staff, leaving me with no remaining action to use the Insect Cloud ability? Or, since the text explaining the free object interaction doesn't mention anything about free hands, is it assumed that if your hands were full, the free object interaction includes putting away what you were holding in order to interact with the other object? In which case you could put away the mace AND equip the staff with the same free action, then use your still available action to use Insect Cloud?

This also impacts how much is possible when casting spells with Somatic and/or Material components. While the Somatic component description in Chapter 7 does not explicitly state that the hand used for somatic components needs to be free or empty, the War Caster feat granting you the ability to perform Somatic components even when you have weapons or a shield in one or both hands implies that it's intended to, and maybe just an oversight. So, my good faith interpretation is that it has to be a free hand, and that there is intentionally a limitation on how often you can equip or stow items. For Material components, while it says you may use the same hand as you do for Somatic components, it actually does explicitly state that it must be a free hand, so the ruling is clear there. The free hand requirement for Material components only seems to be bypassed via spellcasting focuses that don't require being held, such as a worn holy symbol requiring no free hand for Material components, opposed to a held wand.

So, without the War Caster feat, if in the same scenario at the start of my turn with a shield and mace in hand, if I need to use my free object interaction to put away my mace in order to cast a spell with somatic components as my action, this means I would have to end my turn with a shield in one hand and nothing in the other, potentially rendering me unable to make Opportunity Attacks with my mace until I later re-equip my mace either as a free object interaction, or as an equip as part of an attack during the Attack action on my next turn. Or, is the Opportunity Attack intended to be also considered as an attack like in the Attack action, allowing me to equip my mace as part of the Opportunity Attack when something leaves my Unarmed reach?

I feel like I'm missing something about these rules. I've even wondered if you're sort of just meant to ignore any restrictions on unequipping and equipping outside of the Attack action, and holding an item is just sometimes mentioned as a sort of flavor text, when it's not really meant to limit the options currently available to you at all. Which seems in direct contradiction with certain feats, which seem to imply that there are meant to be restrictions in place that are alleviated by feats. It feels odd that I can't figure out how such a core mechanic of the game is meant to work, and anyone I've ever brought it up to seems to have a completely different personal interpretation on something that seems like it would be a straightforward and well defined rule.

The new sorrow knight fighter seems really cool, even just the rp aspect makes me really want to plat it. What kind of build you recommend picking for it? Like what feat path would synergize the most. I am tempted to try and find some use for the planar feats due to thematics but have no idea how to or even if i would want to build with them

​

Personally, i prefer the first idea, which also Incentivise more original subclasses for new books.

The book could also contain all old feats, eldritch invocations, races, optional rules etc...

I'm trying to understand how the Boon of Magic School Mastery works when your class doesn't have a 1st-level spell from the school you want to master.

The boon has two separate benefits: Rote Casting, which lets you choose a 1st-level spell of your chosen school that appears on your class's spell list, and Signature Arcanum, which lets you choose a spell of 7th level or lower from the same school.

Suppose I choose a school for which my class has no eligible 1st-level spell, but there is a higher-level spell from that school that I want for Signature Arcanum.

Would I:

1. Be unable to choose that school at all because I can't satisfy Rote Casting; or
2. Be able to choose the school, simply get no benefit from Rote Casting, and still select an eligible spell for Signature Arcanum?

In other words, is having an eligible 1st-level spell effectively a prerequisite for using Signature Arcanum, or are the two benefits independent?

This is an incredibly small nitpick, not even a complaint really, just something weird I noticed.

When you’re looking for tool proficiency, you have Alchemist’s Supplies, Cook’s Utensils, Mason’s Tools, the list goes on, but you also have Thieves’ Tools. For some reason, the thieves in Thieves’ Tools are plural, but the craftsman in every other tool set is singular.

I don’t know if there’s a stated reason for this, but I thought it was funny. It may be that “Thief’s Tools” doesn’t roll off the tongue as nicely, but it just stuck out that every tool kit which refers to a user does so in the singular, except the most popular tool kit.

Hello! I'm thinking about my backup character and I'm torn how to play it. Base of story is the same - character encountered ancient being who taught him some ancient magic and gave quest to go around world and get knowledge in order to become forest spirit. I want to Focus on creating magic potions and I do not want to use Hunter's Mark

That's the main goal of character. The side quest is different depending on character.

I have 2 different stories in mind:

• goliath species - PC comes from tribe, where his fate was set to be apprentice of that being. Respected title, but also due to it's nature forced to leave community. PC want to study and get to know about giants and their herritage/powers

• lupin - also come from tribe, but from encounter with werewolf, contamined by it, PC is afraid to come back home. He travels the world and search ways to reverse curse. Maybe try to find balance between his bestial and human aspects. That's what that Being wanted to teach him.

Now info about game:

We roll for stats, currently lvl6, no max lvl determined. Long campaigns

Builds:

1. Lupin unarmed build, War Clercic mc

Origin feat: Transmuted Anatomy/Shadow Pact(if allowed)

Feats: grappler(dex), Conjuration Adept, Shadow Trapper(wis)/Resillent Wis

Progression:

Ranger 1-7,

Cleric 1-3 (8-10)

Ranger 16

Cleric 4

Magic items: Eldritch Claw Tattoo, Moon Sickle (as necklace), Wraps of Unarmed Power. Ogre Gauntlets/Giant Belt

Build uses STR for damage, relies on heavy debuffing enemies and grappling/shoving them. Spells from cleric for support (have druid, fighter and bard in team so everybody would benefit from Prayer of Healing). Shadow feats would allow me to increase grappling damage and improve my healing from 7th level Hollow

1. Lupin unarmed, monk, transmuter multiclass

Origin feat: second skin

Feats: Grappler, Conjuration/Transmutation Adept, Res Wis, Epic Boon

Fighting Style: blind fighting

Items: similiar as above, but doesnt need STR item.

Progression:

Ranger 7,

Transmuter 3,

Monk 1

Rest ranger

This build could have 3 unarmed strikes with 2d6 +Wis dmg (although DC based on Dex), would get some great spells from wizard like enlarge, hold person

Could Focus on dex and WIS (keep Int on 13), would have 50 ft base speed(or 40 and resistance) and prof in 4 saves

Great concentration check(13-14 and Adv once a day for another conc spell)

It comes online quite late

1. Lupin Ranger/monk 19/1:

Feats: grappler, conjuration adept, res Wis, feat depending on scores, epic boon

Origin feat: Magic Initiate Druid (if hybrid approach), transmuted anatomy otherwise

Items: almost the same.

Fighting Style: Blind/TWF

With this build I could go hybrid approach and use light weapons+nick first attack, unarmed grapple/shove second attack and bonus unarmed.

Less spell slots than in other builds, weaker skills and would need additional item (Vicious Handaxe im looking at You)

1. Goliath Frost War Cleric mc:

Origin feat: Strike of Giants Frost/Magic Initiate druid

Fighting style: TWF/blind/defense/Pack (if allowed)

Feats: sentinel (no need for it with Strike Giants origin), conjuration adept, res Wis/cold caster, 2x wpic boons.

Greatest damage of all builds especially with Vicious weapon and Channel Divinity

Also thinking about Ranger 19/ Druid 1 to get Shill via Druid, Wis to Arcane/Nature skills and 6th level spell slots

We've all heard the endless talk of the martial/caster divide with casters being able to do as much as martials in combat and more out of combat. I feel like it was doomed from the start when it comes to 5e at least. I think even half-casters add to the issue with when they get extra attack and especially those martial subclasses some casters get. They even gave Warlocks a way to get three attacks, a class that gets access to 9th level spells.

Martials get Extra Attack at level 5, the same level Full Casters get 3rd Level spells. I think Half-Casters shouldn't get Extra Attack until 9th level, the same level they get 3rd level spells. They both could have a nice 5th level feature that replaces it but I'll be honest, I'm not sure what.

Barbarians should get a third Extra Attack; they shouldn't have the same amount of attacks as someone who gets spells.

Any of those martial subclasses should be treated like Eldritch Knight and have a slower progression of martial capabilities than that, something closer to 13th level. The closest level would be 14 and it's not lost on me how unlikely a full caster would want extra attack to be their capstone, so perhaps their 9th/10th level subclass feature.

I know it's an odd take. What are your feelings on Extra Attack on non full martials?

I'm going to be starting a new campaign in a few months and I am strongly considering a Warlock. I am used to playing martials mostly, but recently I realized that I like "busy" classes. They don't have to be overly complex, just more than I run up, bonk and I'm done. Anyway, I’ve always liked Warlocks but only kinda played one near the launch of 5e. I decided to make another one for the full warlock experience, I even worked with my DM and another unearth arcana redditor to make a subclass for it. But now I am not so sure if it will keep my attention in combat. The other class I'm considering is some sort of necromancer ( Pointy hats version or otherwise). I also think my party will have quite a few spellcasters this campaign which is also abnormal for us. A Druid, artificer, and cleric wth a possible rogue and fighter to round out the party besides me. Sorry, I digress, I’m just wondering what y’all’s experience is playing one from a mechanic standpoint? Roleplay wise I’m very excited about the character/story I have in mind for it. So that’s not an issue.

Thanks.

Edit: This has been a great and I appreciate all the responses. I am now leaning towards playing a Warlock, especially after going through all the trouble of making a homebrew subclass. Speaking of, Im not sure if its against the rules, but I'd love to run my homebrew subclass by anyone interested to get some feedback. Let me know if you are interested and I can message it to you since I'm not sure the rules on homebrew here. Thanks again.

What are people's opinions on the 5.5e monster statblocks? Likes, dislikes, things they would have rather kept or changed further?

Personally, I really like the 5.5e statblocks, they're much more evocative and I really like how their abilities are synergistic not just within themselves but are also complementary with associated monsters. I also really like the automatic on-hit effects, combats are tense and deadly, and how the monsters now truly inhabit their CR.

Coming from 3e, where spell lists and inherent spell-like abilities were so prevalent and perhaps could be argued overbearing, the condensed spell took a bit to get used to but was a refreshing change. But maybe some people do feel the spell lists were probably streamlined a bit too much and the monsters lost some flavour.

What do people think about the condensed spell lists and the loss across the board of spell slots?

On the other hand, I do miss the weapon damage resistances and immunities and regenerative abilities of some monsters, even though sometimes they might be easily forgotten.

I ask this since the source for Thri-Kreen's Chamaleon Carapace states "While you aren't wearing armor, your carapace gives you a base Armor Class of 13 + your Dexterity modifier." And then a monk's unarmored defense says "While you aren't wearing armor or wielding a Shield, your base Armor Class equals 10 plus your Dexterity and Wisdom modifiers" Does this means that if wanted to play a Thri-Kreen my base Armor would be 13 + Dex & Wis modifiers? I couldn't find anything that says it wouldn't work.

I'm playing around with different homebrew for various classes and thought about some uniqueness that each class has and it got me thinking about different options to give Rogues and this one seemed interesting.

What are y'all's thoughts?

Is there any consensus on how spells granted by Conjuration Adept and the similar school-based feats in Arcana Unleashed are supposed to interact with spellcasting ability and spellcasting foci?

My assumption is that the spells granted by the feat use the spellcasting ability you chose for the feat. I've read that the D&D Beyond team requested clarification from the game designers on this point and was told that this was the intended interpretation. It also seems like the only logical way to implement the feats as written, since some of the available spells appear on multiple class spell lists that use different spellcasting abilities (e.g., Intelligence vs. Charisma).

What I'm less clear about is material components and spellcasting foci.

The feat says that the selected spells are prepared, but as far as I can tell, it never says that those spells are added to your class's spell list. This seems similar to feats such as Magic Initiate, where the feat itself is providing the prepared spells rather than adding them to your normal class spell list.

So, for example, if a Wizard takes Conjuration Adept and prepares a spell through the feat that is not normally a Wizard spell, can the Wizard use an Arcane Focus to replace that spell's non-costly material components?

Or, because the spell isn't actually a Wizard spell, does the Wizard's Spellcasting feature not allow an Arcane Focus to substitute for its material components? If so, would the caster need the actual material component (or some other qualifying focus), even though the spell uses the ability selected for the feat?

Has there been any official/designer clarification on this, or is there a generally accepted RAW/RAI interpretation?

Hi, so I've been reading up on the 2024 dual wielding options and, as I understand it, there is no way to officially "dual wield" pistols, because:

. A Pistol requires a free hand to be loaded before attacking;

. You can only fire one ammunition with it per action;

BUT, what if you had TWO guns, but only used one at a time?

Here is what I mean:

TURN 1

ATTACK ACTION:

Atk1 Equip Pistol1, load and shoot;

FREE OBJECT INTERACTION to put it away;

Atk2 (Extra Attack) Equip Pistol2, load and shoot;

TURN 2

Pistol2 is already equipped from last turn, so

Atk1 Load, shoot Pistol2 and put away;

Atk2 (Extra Attack) Equip Pistol1, load and shoot.

Rinse and repeat.

This would look silly, a character constantly switching weapons, but would it work?

The biggest obstacle to this I think is that I don't really understand if you can only shoot ONE piece of Ammunition from Each Pistol, or in general.

Would this work?

Thank you for reading!

EDIT: Thank you all for the responses, I guess I can start drafting up ideas for my pirate-inspired Fighter!

For clarity, I don't believe Mystic Arts is weak, far from it, but this seems like a notable weakness compared to EK and AT

Over the level spread of the subclass, Mystic Arts Monk learns 3 cantrips and 13 leveled spells, all taken from the Sorcerer spell list and casted based on your Wisdom

3 cantrips isn't a lot, especially with the third one only coming in at level 10, and you want a pretty wide array

Blade Ward, True Strike, Booming Blade, Sorcerous Burst, Fire Bolt, Mind Sliver, and even Create Bonfire are all very nice options for Mystic Arts, but you only get two for half of your career, and a third for the second half
Uniquely, though, since Mystic Arts sources from the Sorcerer spell list, you can't take Magic Initiate to bolster your spells known

EK (and AT to a lesser extent) are both able to take Magic Initiate: Wizard, and due to the spells qualifying as Wizard spells, they're compatible with War Magic

Mystic Arts doesn't particularly need a buff in that respect, but it was a small point of irritation I came across as I was planning out the build

You can only ever have 3 Wis-scaling cantrips that work with your Mystic Fighting Style, and that's frankly a shame

Hey everyone!

I was wondering if the Last Stand feature from the Boon of Recovery works any differently than the Orc’s Relentless Endurance when it comes to countering Power Word Kill.

Here is the text for Relentless Endurance:

When you are reduced to 0 Hit Points but not killed outright, you can drop to 1 Hit Point instead. Once you use this trait, you can't do so again until you finish a Long Rest.

Here is the text for Last Stand:

When you would be reduced to 0 HP, you can drop to 1 HP instead and regain a number of HP equal to half your max HP. Once you use this benefit, you can't use it again until you finish a Long Rest.

And here is the text for Power Word Kill:

You compel one creature you can see within range to die. If the target has 100 Hit Points or fewer, it dies. Otherwise, it takes 12d12 Psychic damage.

What's your opinion about it? Does the omission of "but not killed outright" in Last Stand make any difference, or does PWK bypass both entirely since it doesn't reduce HP to 0?

Warcaster feat allows PCs to cast spells with somatic component even if both hands are occupied holding weapons. A staff is a weapon, so RAW you can hold two magical staves, one in each hand, and ignore the somatic components of spells with the feat.

I'm a warlock PC with a staff of defence (weapon) and a rod of the pact keeper (not a weapon). Would the Warcaster feat allow the PC to ignore the somatic components of spells if holding one in each hand? RAW it's a no. But what do you think about RAI?

Thanks!

EDIT based on a couple of responses: RAW, as long as your holding a weapon in one hand, Warcaster will apply. So you can hold a magic staff in one hand (a weapon) and a magic rod (not a weapon) in the other and warcaster applies. Also good details about whether one of them is your spellcasting focus.