Talk:5e Homebrew

Page addition Request

Can we add "Symbiotes" to the equipment section? i have a slew of hb symbiotes id love to share with the world

Personally, symbiotes sound more like creatures to me, but if you're dedicated to adapting them as equipment, the best place would be as wondrous items, rather than creating rules for a completely new type of item. --Ref3rence (talk) 14:01, 30 November 2020 (MST)

I guess you could also make it a variant rule, come to think of it. Additionally, if you do go ahead and add them as wondrous items, you should probably add the |subtype=Symbiote field to make them easier to find and sort. --Ref3rence (talk) 14:43, 30 November 2020 (MST)

If they have a lot of common rules, you could probably make a sourcebook page, and keep them all under one roof there. Sorta what I’m trying to do with Marvelous Magitech Enhancements and Replacements (5e Sourcebook). Might not be the best way to go about it, but hell if I know a better way.--SwankyPants (talk) 07:49, 2 December 2020 (MST)

Fiendish Help

I need some help, I have a mostly completed Duelist/Warlock character but I don't have a fiend for it. Description below Gender: Female Fiend type:Erynis or Succubus Title:Bringer of Cardinal Sin Other than this I haven't made anything. Please help! Shikeshi (talk)

I'm not quite sure what you're asking for. A monster statblock? Marasmusine (talk) 04:03, 25 February 2017 (MST)

Structural Completeness

I've just ordered the Player's Handbook, it's going to take a while to get to me, but in the meantime I'll look through some preview material and have a crack at some preloads and templates. Marasmusine 06:37, 18 August 2014 (MDT)

Great! I have started on the 5th edition's structure, but there is still a lot to be done with the preloads, subpages, categories, etc. The "5e" table is just thrown up on MediaWiki:Common.css for now, and needs to be improved greatly when it can be.

A few questions of mine remain too:

• Are "archetype variants" even something that should be so prominant, or just shoved in "Character Options"? The same question remains with subraces.
• What are the epic progressions like? Are they with the classes?
• An index needs to be developed, with knowledge if "origins" and "keywords" are used, or rather "types" and "subtypes" (which I doubt since there are subraces).
• What are epic spells like? Do they warrant their own section?
• Are NPCs in with the creatures like in 4e, or separate again with "NPC classes"?

Lots still need to be fleshed out too. --Green Dragon (talk) 07:08, 18 August 2014 (MDT)

• I'm not sure what a archetype variant is, but there are subraces presented with the race. If subraces are available, you have to pick a subrace (specific example: If you want to be a gnome, you have to choose a Forest Gnome or a Rock Gnome).
• There's no epic anything in the PHB, just levels 1 to 20 (may have to wait for the DMG)
• Races do not have origins, keywords, types or subtypes. So there aren't many indexing options.
• I'm not sure how NPCs are handled yet. There are some monster statblocks, again I think we'll have to wait for the DMG for NPCs. Update: There are some NPCs in the DMG Basic rules. They are treated like monsters - there are no NPC classes.

One thing to note is that Backgrounds are now more important (I think compulsory). Rituals are spells. The menu options should be:

• Races
• Classes
• Personality and Background
• Equipment
• Spells
• Feats

Marasmusine (talk) 09:53, 18 August 2014 (MDT)

Yes, there are types but now tags instead of origins and keywords.

I wonder if instead of "epic" there is "legendary gameplay". The creatures seem to be going that route.

I think that it is good to keep "Character Options" since feats are a variant rule, in effect (unless they are different in the published PHB). Putting the backgrounds in Character Options makes sense too.

If there are Legendary Classes then it should be "Classes and Legendary Classes", I'll have to change that. Can you confirm if they are Legendary Classes?

Spells seems good to, and that needs to be changed as well. --Green Dragon (talk) 00:33, 19 August 2014 (MDT)

Backgrounds are as important as Race and Class now, it's where a PC gets proficiencies, starting equipment, and some other features. I'd like our menu to reflect the four steps you take to make a character, 1) Race, 2) Class, 3) Background, 4) Equipment. Marasmusine (talk) 00:52, 19 August 2014 (MDT)

Are you proposing that we split backgrounds away from character options? This could work.

Skills are also very important, since many class features now are oriented around a skill. As such, I imagine that many homebrew skills will be created to work with a new class feature.

I agree that 1) Race, 2) Class, 3) Background, 4) Equipment but then we need 5) Spells 6) Character Options and 7) Optimized Character Builds. --Green Dragon (talk) 01:18, 19 August 2014 (MDT)

Except for the 2) Class, since isn't "Classes and Legendary Classes" correct, or is it reasonable to leave it as "Progressions"?

Also should an emphasis be placed on "combat actions" somewhere here? I know that it fits into 5e Rules, but it could be better to emphasize it. Do you think that combat actions are pretty fleshed out, or it offers lots of room for variations? --Green Dragon (talk) 01:45, 19 August 2014 (MDT)

"Progressions" does future-proof us, but I don't know what progressions WoTC are planning beyond Classes. For the sake of simplicity and newcomer-friendliness, I would have the menu link as just "Classes", but it's your choice.

What kind of homebrew Combat Actions can we expect? Perhaps tripping, disarming, sundering... but I predict we'll see these in a future module. Marasmusine (talk) 03:52, 19 August 2014 (MDT)

That would make the most sense. I have changed it to just "Classes" and put the legendary list on their too.

I have also added combat actions to rules. --Green Dragon (talk) 03:33, 24 August 2014 (MDT)

Subraces are a property of races, and archetypes are a property of classes, they do not exist in isolation. A Gnome cannot choose "Hill Dwarf" as a subrace, nor can a Warrior choose the Bard's College of Lore at lvl3, for example. So, under races, there should be a section dedicated to homebrew subraces for official races, with each core race having its own wiki page where people can add subraces to the list, while whole-cloth races would just have subraces as part of their wiki entry. The same should be done for archetypes within class; each core class having a single page where new archetypes can be given their own entries on a single page, while new classes would have a section listing their archetypes. Because any individual feat is so small and simple, all homebrew feats could be put into a single page as well. Likewise, skills are typically given descriptions less than three sentences long, and are usually very broad in their application, making a whole page dedicated to each skill not only cumbersome, but also kind of aesthetically unappealing.--75.156.182.195 12:38, 30 September 2014 (MDT)

Should there not be a section somewhere for new Downtime Activities? Kydo (talk) 14:56, 8 May 2015 (MDT)

I think this is an appropriate place. Are there objections to changing the link for Spells to something similar to 3.5e Complex Special Ability Components? I think "Special Abilities" is a fine enough title for the link and then you can find the 5e Spells spells link within there, along with any Trunnamer abilities, and of course powers since Psionics are thing, etc. BigShotFancyMan (talk) 10:39, 27 August 2018 (MDT)

How many options are you seeing? Right now it seems like 5e has a lot less than 3.5e, so maybe adding the Complex Special Ability Components onto 5e Spells would make both pages usable to more users? --Green Dragon (talk) 10:35, 17 December 2018 (MST)

Bloodlines

I'm thinking of doing some bloodlines, I'm not sure what approach is best. Would people prefer to see Unearthed Arcana style levelled bloodlines, or we could use feats? Marasmusine (talk) 03:21, 24 July 2015 (MDT)

I'd recommend a setup similar to 3.5 chart that offers bonuses as the game progresses and the DM and player decide that they have reached a point in which they "unlock" the features of their bloodline. Overall I love the idea of bloodlines because they offer a "racial" set of bonuses that are too potent for a base race but are too general to assign to a class, feat, or archetype. It wasn't quite a Bloodline mechanic per-say, but we were in a low-loot styled game so the DM decided to give rewards to story and accomplishments in the form of abilities and features. Where do you feel a "features/abilities as loot" section could be placed? Kind of like pre-epic boons if you will.--Gr7mm Bobb (talk) 11:31, 19 January 2017 (MST)

I never actually got round to doing this. Has anyone else had a go? I don't want to invest time in it if someone's already adapted it. I've realised that it would have to be called something other than "bloodlines", since that word is used by sorcerer subclasses. Maybe "lineage"? Marasmusine (talk) 14:04, 4 April 2019 (MDT)

Maybe racial rewards, and linked to on 5e Rewards? --Green Dragon (talk) 23:32, 4 April 2019 (MDT)

I was thinking the same thing. It's like receiving a Blessing. At the same time, I liked 3rd edition's systemic approach where you get certain types of benefit at certain levels. There's no reason why I can't combine the two though. Marasmusine (talk) 01:27, 5 April 2019 (MDT)

Rate my Campaign

Hi, I made a campaign that I think is rather complete and I would like a rating for it. The link to the campaign is here: Runeterra (5e Campaign Setting) Make sure to read the page on how to rate a campaign Link to page here! before rating it unless you've read it already. --Aldwynadain (talk) 07:22, 7 January 2016 (MST)

Er... OK. I have to warn you though I'm not a big LOL fan. --Kydo (talk) 23:14, 8 January 2016 (MST)

Hey all!!

First pass for hermetic mage incoming. As I work on this I am going to need tons of ideas for spell options. if anyone wants to jump in and help....creating a whole new magic system has not been easy :) Once I am done I will also be making something in optional rules for Hermetic casting as an option for wizards and i'll also make an archetype for sorcerers.Hades996 (talk) 08:03, 8 February 2016 (MST)

Hello, at some point I'll probably leave some feedback on the talk page, I tend to leave bullet-point lists of things that need rewording or reworking. Marasmusine (talk) 13:20, 8 February 2016 (MST)

question

who do i need to contact to see if someone can make me or help me make some legitimate playable races and classes for the local games? If i understood what is like, legal or whatever i would do it myself. I just dont know where to do that, or look for that...got to be some guide lines somewhere. I have seen some things here that i like however the local dm doesnt like some of the stuff i like...so i am trying to find a happy middle or something. Right now i am playing in the store, about 3 times a week. next up is the evil campaign and i am looking to change characters to something...more enjoyable and exploitative. I am going to spend some time looking and asking here....sorry if i get on peoples nerves...i havent played in a long time.

I can try to help out when I can; however, you must give an idea of a theme for me to help you. Azernath (talk) 10:07, 30 April 2016 (MDT)

I would recommend that you first talk to your DM and the other players. What are they willing to accept in their games? What type of options are they using for themselves? What type of game is being played? Is it a 6-player game with iconic characters, or a free form sandbox? Then, I would ask the DM to personally help you understand what he or she is willing to accept in the game, what choices does he or she leave for the players, and what are the sources being applied in your game? Finally, I would join the game as you are allowed to join and if something comes your fancy just let people know about it, and see where this takes you. If you need more advice just let me know. --Green Dragon (talk) 16:46, 30 April 2016 (MDT)

• I have asked the dm, and he looks on the wiki pages and...something seems off like...he relates the overlord class as an anti paladin. I Disagree, as overlord is minion based...not anti paladin...I know im probably missing a point or something. He is new to dming. It has been a long time for me since i played as well so...i am looking for something that he can feel confident with and something that i will enjoy at the same time...When i ask him to look over the races/classes...it seems to bother him...as if i am doing something wrong so i am trying to find out something that he cant rebuttal and enjoy running a campaign for as i enjoy playing it. I sent a huge list of ideas to that M dude... Maramara....something a rather and he said he will help. I will send a copy to Azernath if i can figure out the email. Cause thats where i have everything written that i was considering. McAlester Gamerz Customer (talk) 14:12, 1 May 2016 (MDT)

I can hear you McAlester; however, next time if you want to reach me then just click on my talk page near my signature, and it will take you directly there.

• I have a few good classes like the Inquisitor (5e Class) or Knight (5e Class) that are not finished, but need some feedback before they are done. If you can try them then that will be great.
• Also a good archetype that might work with your DM is the Shieldman (5e Archetype) or Spellbreaker (5e Archetype).

If you got an idea that you want to create then simply tell me and I might be able to help. Azernath (talk) 16:03, 1 May 2016 (MDT)

Checked em out, but now i have to go to that evil campaign thing here in town. I liked them over all. McAlester Gamerz Customer (talk) 14:00, 3 May 2016 (MDT)

Hold, do you mean Kingdom Con in San Diego? Azernath (talk) 19:40, 4 May 2016 (MDT)

No...IN Mcalester...oklahoma....LOLMcAlester Gamerz Customer (talk) 22:01, 4 May 2016 (MDT)

I've been working on a guide for class creation... But it is not simple. Personally, as a DM, most of the pages on this wiki make me cringe from their overwhelming cliche'd cheeziness. Immaturity abounds in a sea of unfinished fanfiction and power-fantasy. There's too much being done without consideration or foresight by too many people, and there is too little oversight or cross-editing. For example, Summoner has undergone hundreds of edits by the same small group of users, who I have never seen anywhere else on the wiki. I had intended to try and work on it, but they change too much too fast all the time, and I deemed it a lost cause. Many pages are started, then immediately abandoned due to disinterest, and never finished. Heck, even I have a dozen or so pages that have never reached completion. Much of the material on this website has little to no playtesting behind it, and anyone with a firm grasp of the game's balance and mechanics can probably spot at least a few broken classes or races which are currently passing as "A-OK". --Kydo (talk) 06:36, 5 May 2016 (MDT)

I too have had the problems you mentioned; furthermore, I had races and classes that I left for a while to take care of other projects, and when I came back, I found the page have been changed by few named and mostly unnamed editors who did what they want with out giving any reason or a heads up that they will do so; however, I can't deny their right to do so because this is a free website and everyone voice matters equally, yet it would be nice if they just tell us what they have of an idea and state the intentions to the original authors just like McAlester Gamerz Customer, or at the very least have the decency to be a part of our community and make a user name, SO WE CAN KNOW THE BASTARDS WHO DID THIS TO OUR BABIES AND KICK LIVING HELL OUT OF THEM. ... inhale ... exhale ... inhale ... exhale .... Sorry for the out burst, but I have had this in me for a long time (He says half holding and half choking a bottle of water). :) Azernath (talk) 11:50, 5 May 2016 (MDT)

I agree with both of you even though, to a point you are at odds with each other, as I am mildly also. I dont mind cheesy fan fiction as long as it is used decently. Because it is the exploration in search for understanding of concepts and ideas the mind seeks to fulfill itself via the ego/id. Somethings are better left...not understood and forgotten, and some are there for temporary relief of daily stress. We can underestimate the power of silly to destress the human soul, mind and body. At the same time it makes me understand that people who abandon or haphazardly contribute are probably poor parents. Playtesting needs to happen and it needs to be unbiasly tested, soooo it needs review and use by others...therefore it needs to be completed, and chosen, so deleting something silly, etc...without consideration...defeats the purpose.

Again if we see one of these 'baby's' laying around, i will agree something needs to be done. Even if you dont like the addition, and you remove it, the contributor will feel the same way that the original poster feels if its altered/or removed...So BOTH need to wake up, get real and work together to raise that 'baby' to an actual playable class or race. So Azernath, unless i am mistaken, you had a sprite thing that had an abandoned or something template, and then someone added a subrace, then you got mad and deleted it, and then the contributor got bad at you for the very same thing you got mad at them for....so work together....restore and enjoy...seriously...I would be honored if someone took that much time to make a sub race or something, especially if they were not just a common person. Seriously. anyway...with that being said, please look at my user page and stuff and tell me what you think...work on something and tell me what you would like me to work on. or something. etc...cause i have more time than most of you i bet.

Err... Yes... Generally, being polite to each other is a good idea. (However bad at it I am) I was more commenting about the lack of community. There's a few of us who interact with each other a lot- some more because of actual responsibility, others because of some bizarre neurosis... But most of the "users" here just log in, make an edit or two, and vanish forever. That would be fine, I mean, it won't be for everyone, except that all-too-often, their single contribution is a new page with little thought or planning behind it. Often, it's a rehashing of another page that has already been completed- they didn't even take the time to look up if anyone else already created what they were looking for! I've deleted a surprising amount of vandalism, (usually in Spanish for some reason?) and have had to correct HEAPS of spelling issues. (Granted, I have been a source of a great deal of such errors) Many pages are little more than a title and a brief overview. We still have people making new content, but using terminology or rules from other editions. Tons of pages are incomplete, but not marked as such. Many pages are unbalanced, but not marked as such. Many pages are poorly written, confusing, or filled with grammatical and spelling errors, and again not marked as such. Now, going around and critiquing every single page is not only impractical- it can also be considered rude. After all, Azernath thinks of their ideas as "babies". More to the point, much of this, such as "brokenness" is extremely subjective. Many weapons that I designed have been identified as unbalanced. I still disagree with and resent this, but I am the distinct minority in that regard, so I must be wrong, at least in a technical sense. Attempting to systematically enforce testplaying and "balance" in everything on the site would just create more resentment, particularly toward whoever decided to take it upon themselves to fulfill such a role. The root of this problem is that nobody feels like sticking around. Nobody really plays each others stuff much, and there's just very little creative cross-pollination. If there were more active users, and people actually used each others stuff, there would be actual conversations outside of "Hey, your design goes outside of the theoretical guidelines proposed for this content by the developers". Heck, if more people actually even took the time to read each others stuff, that'd at least get more eyes out for grammar and spelling. As for the original question, McAlester, if you want any help on a project or page, I'd be happy to help. I'm not as active as I used to be- things aren't doing so well here in Alberta- but I like to participate when I have the time. --Kydo (talk) 17:07, 5 May 2016 (MDT)

exactly, however i am doing the best that i can. We are all hitting the nail on the head. Is the house done being built yet? I dont think so. We could all be hitting the same nail. Well feel free to look at my user page and take initiative. Also about grammar and spelling, that also is subjective due to where your born and even more importantly, WHEN you were born. Some things are spelled differently depending on your 'custome'. For example. McAlester Gamerz Customer (talk) 08:05, 6 May 2016 (MDT)

Dungeon or Game?

I disagree with the transition to refering to the Dungeon Master as a Game Master. DM has been the correct term for the game master of a D&D session for decades. Additionally, you can never get past the fact that "game-master" spoken aloud always sounds like "gay-master" which is offensive to pretty much everyone except people who think that is hilarious- like me. The use of that title outside of hobbyist company just perpetuates the stigma of D&D being socially deviant and subversive because of that- it randomly attributes sexual implications to the game which are not true. (DM does have similar connotations, but nowhere near as severe, because most people are at least aware of the title these days.) I would prefer the title "Game Master" be left to other games. D&D has its own word for the role. --Kydo (talk) 15:19, 28 June 2016 (MDT)

I also prefer DM for D&D, unsure why this was changed. I'm a GM when I play GURPS :) Marasmusine (talk) 15:54, 28 June 2016 (MDT)

I changed this because the 5e SRD:System Reference Document uses "GM" and this is how 5e is written. For example take a look at 5e SRD:Inspiration. If you would not mind asnwering me first if you had already considered this or not when you first posted these comments, I would appreciate that. --Green Dragon (talk) 06:10, 29 June 2016 (MDT)

You will have to forgive the confusion because the books use "DM", e.g. the DMG says "Some DMs forgo using inspiration..." (p. 240). Marasmusine (talk) 07:16, 29 June 2016 (MDT)

Why would I read the SRD if I have the core books? --Kydo (talk) 15:57, 29 June 2016 (MDT)

As with 3rd edition, the SRD is a reference for 3rd party publishers, not a reference for gamers, you can't play the game just using the SRD. It's WoTC saying "it's okay to print this material in your own OGL publications.

I'm guessing the use of "game master" is because WoTC have trademarked "Dungeon Master", and the SRD does not contain trademarks.

If Green Dragon wants to be compliant with respecting trademarks, then there's quite a lot that would need renaming. Marasmusine (talk) 16:14, 29 June 2016 (MDT)

Fair enough, we will just use the term "Dungeon Master" as a carry over from 3.5e SRD usage. Since we have carried over many formats and templates throughout editions, I think we can disregard this trademark situation fairly. --Green Dragon (talk) 09:57, 30 June 2016 (MDT)

Environment Count

Why does it say there are 21 items, but there's only 4 on the page? --Kydo (talk) 12:09, 1 October 2016 (MDT)

Could you be more specific? What page? Could you put it in an internal link please? --Psolkaiyn Tantaloss (talk) 20:20, 27 January 2017 (MST)

Whoops, nvm. I found it. Can't find the error though. --Psolkaiyn Tantaloss (talk) 10:33, 28 January 2017 (MST)

Yeah, I dunno what's causing it either. I've checked all the categories. Marasmusine (talk) 12:14, 28 January 2017 (MST)

Homebrew Adventures/Campaigns

Hey, I was looking around this place a bit and I can't find a category that seems like the right place for homebrew adventures or campaigns. Now, I don't mean campaign settings, but actual campaigns, with full adventures. And the quests page doesn't seem to have any homebrew adventures on it. Can somebody direct me to a category where it would be a proper place for a homebrew adventure/campaign? --Cosmos (talk) 18:59, 15 January 2019 (MST)

What scale are you talking about, encounters maybe? It seems like what you have is either that or a quest, but can you give some more information? Maybe write up what you mean in your userspace, and I can take a look at it. --Green Dragon (talk) 22:59, 15 January 2019 (MST)

What I mean are adventures/campaigns of a size or similar to official Wizards of the Coast adventure moduels, like Tyranny of Dragons. I am considering a homebrew campaign, and I was wondering if I would be able to publish something that big somewhere on this wiki. --Cosmos (talk) 12:03, 16 January 2019 (MST)

For clarification, something that contains more than 1 quest and more than 1 encounter. --Cosmos (talk) 05:11, 17 January 2019 (MST)

I haven't seen any collection of encounters or an adventure set-up. There's Quests, Encounters, and Campaign Settings.

How do others feel about an ID (5e Adventure) to annotate this being like a module vs a singular quest or encounter and not quite the scale of a campaign? I don't propose any templates or preloads for the time. I would recommend Cosmos look at 3.5e Quests structure. The quests do have a bit of a format but I am pretty sure these are very brief compared to what you want to do. ~ BigShotFancyMan (talk) 06:38, 17 January 2019 (MST)

Maybe I could just publish several different quests on top of each other, and give each quest a certain level, like it is for 3.5 Homebrew Quests, and link them to each other? A possibility? Also, I was just asking in case I did decide to create a homebrew adventure. I'm not yet completely sure if I want to invest the time in creating an adventure. Heck, my current campaign is just LMoP into SKT into ToD XD. --Cosmos (talk) 08:08, 17 January 2019 (MST)

Your idea is exactly what Tales of the Yawning Portal is; a collection of adventures that if you wanted could be played through as an entire campaign. ~ BigShotFancyMan (talk) 08:37, 17 January 2019 (MST)

Yeah pretty much, except my FORMAT idea is the same, not the campaign idea itself. My adventures would work best linked to each other, TotYP has multiple adventures which aren't linked to each other (but can be). --Cosmos (talk) 12:05, 17 January 2019 (MST)

I agree that making multiple quests in a sequence is the best solution. If there is more desire for an adventure section we can make it then. --Green Dragon (talk) 22:16, 17 January 2019 (MST)

Sounds good, thanks :) --Cosmos (talk) 07:52, 18 January 2019 (MST)

New to the Community

Ive recently just joined the D&D wiki and hope to start adding new content. But i have little experience and dont know what to start with. I've read the guidelines for creating races and classes but they say you should probably get experience with making a different feature first. Anyone have some tips or useful comments? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 77.99.48.5 (talk • contribs) . Please sign your posts.

To make good homebrew I would recommend that you start off with making and fleshing out a few subraces. Then after you get familiar with how to balance and make subraces, you can work on making a few new races or adopting incomplete races and fully fleshing them out. Likewise, I would then recommend you do the same with a few subclasses. Finally, I would say that you are ready to make a fully fledged class. Although you don't have to follow this exact order, I would at least recommend that you work on subraces or subclasses first before continuing on to make a race or class.

A few useful tips you could use to make homebrew would be to read through many of the relevant 1st party content for whatever you are working on to get a better understanding of the relative balance and general design behind making homebrew. For example, subraces typically have a +1 to a different ability score than the main race and few ok or good traits, and when subclasses gain a feature at a specific level, the features often follow some sort of general pattern. Looking at warlock subclasses as an example, their 1st level features tend to be at will or a high use ability, their 6th level feature tends to be a reaction based defensive feature, their 10th level feature tends to often be a passive defensive feature, and their 14th level feature tends to act as a substitute for a high level spell slot, often giving the warlock access to a powerful effect that can only be used once. Finally, a good homebrew class really should have a unique mechanic at 1st and/or 2nd level that gives the class some sort of niche that does not already exist, and makes the class play differently than other 1st party and homebrew classes.

Their are also a lot of other nuances to creating homebrew, that you will learn in time. Remember that you are not going to know everything when you start and even the most experienced homebrewer can make mistakes, so don't beat yourself up about not knowing something. One of the most important things to remember is to continue moving forward and further refining your work as you grow more experienced with the system/5e.--Blobby383b (talk) 01:16, 22 February 2020 (MST)

Quality of the Homebrew Work

I would like to start a discussion of the quality of the work in the 5e homebrew section of this wiki. I have done a deep dive on the classes, subclasses and races on this wiki. I find the subclasses and classes to be generally well developed, creative, and interesting, dozens or even hundreds of them definitely worth putting into my campaign. After looking at them I looked at the races. I am very disappointed. the races are for the most part boring, unimaginative, barely worth bothering with. I have found only about 20 worth putting in my campaign. An example of this may be found in the Incurvatus subclass, where I had to really work to reduce the number of interesting subclasses down to 120, and had to work to push the number of races to 40. We can do better folks. We can build much more interesting and imaginative races. Arquebus (talk) 08:46, 28 March 2020 (MDT)

Can you please nominate all the pages that you consider worthy to be in your campaign to become quality articles so that we can understand where you are coming from better? --Green Dragon (talk) 12:01, 28 March 2020 (MDT)

I don't believe that nominating some pages to quality articles addresses their issue of not finding most race pages interesting. Either way though, what everyone finds interesting or worth using on the wiki is subjective. My 20 favorite races on the wiki will be different than your 20 and your 20 will also be different than another users, and so on. The point of having so many brews is that you can pick and choose your favorites to use. Personally, the number of 5e subclasses and classes I would use on the wiki don't number over 10 because of my extremely high requirements(excellent flavor, balance, and something I am interested in). That however, does not mean that the existing brews need to be changed/reworked to fit my tastes, I just need to find the ones that already fit my tastes.--Blobby383b (talk) 11:15, 29 March 2020 (MDT)

Composite Characters

I've seen some back and forth on the topic of composite characters being one page or two, and I think we should come to an official consensus. Throwing in my two cents, I don't see the purpose of having a class that's restricted to one race be on its own page. --Ref3rence (talk) 09:25, 28 April 2020 (MDT)

I think one page is the right way, also I think a different ID. (5e composite, 5e racial class, etc.) Red Leg Leo (talk) 11:37, 28 April 2020 (MDT)

For the few composite examples, I agree that they should be on one page. A different ID would break a lot of DPLs, so I don't agree that makes sense. I would stay stick with the base requirement (e.g. a race that offers a specific class, or a background that offers a specific racial class, etc) for the ID. If the templates currently break various DPLs then it should be mentioned on the appropriate template's talk pages that it breaks the page, and they should be split until the solution is implemented in the templates. --Green Dragon (talk) 13:26, 28 April 2020 (MDT)

Overall, I am mostly on board with having these sorts of pages on just one page and the idea of using the base requirement for the id of the page works. The only thing that has me a bit hesitant on is the issue of whether these types of pages should be categorized as both a class/race or a background/race, ect. or whether they should just be categorized under their base requirement.--Blobby383b (talk) 20:41, 28 April 2020 (MDT)

I think race is fine. Their racial class levels. So even though it is a "class" (pseudo) you're still dealing with everything race. Red Leg Leo (talk) 06:30, 29 April 2020 (MDT)

how do you submit a homebrew class

hey i dont understand how to submit a homebrew class to the wiki any help

on the left side, at the top, click on "5e Homebrew". Click on a subject you want to create a homebrew. Lets choose "Character Options", then "Subclasses". In the middle-ish, there is a text box with the words "MySubclass (5e Subclass)". replace mysubclass with the name of a subclass you'd like and leave the parenthetical words alone. THIS IS IMPORTANT FOR ANY ARTICLE. Leave the words in parenthesis alone. Click the blue "button". In there, edit the words with what you'd like. Same for any page. Lets start with that and check back in later. Red Leg Leo (talk) 18:27, 23 May 2020 (MDT)

Class Variants

Is it possible to set up a category for variant classes much as we have a category for race variants? I have a subclass of wizard which is a little bit too different from standard wizard to really be a subclass, but it also builds upon the wizard class, so it isn't really its own class. It would be an example for a wizard class variant. Incurvatus (wizard) Arquebus (talk) 10:40, 12 November 2020 (MST)

If we add enough categories (like Category:Wizard) to the classes, then sure this makes sense. Let me know when you have gone through the list and made these changes. --Green Dragon (talk) 12:02, 13 November 2020 (MST)

Green Dragon, will this approach work? It looks like 'category:class variant' is something that exists in 4e, perhaps 'Category:5e Class Variant' would be better.

[[Category:Wizard Tag]]
[[Category:5e Class Variant]]

Arquebus (talk) 00:09, 17 November 2020 (MST)

That makes sense. I see that you made some category changes already. Let me know when I should unlock 5e Classes for you to change the lists to sort by class variants. --Green Dragon (talk) 10:11, 20 November 2020 (MST)

I have also added a category '5e Class Mashup' for classes that seem to be mashups of other classes, rather than just variants of one. I hope that does not get us in trouble. Arquebus (talk) 11:04, 20 November 2020 (MST)

I saw that category too. Ok, I'll unlock 5e Classes for now. Let me know when your organization of the page is finished. --Green Dragon (talk) 12:32, 20 November 2020 (MST)

My concern is the 5e Classes is already pretty slow. I don't want to add to it and make it slower. Another page perhaps. Could we have perhaps a Class Variants page and a Class Mashup page? I would also like to know how you build it. Thanks. Arquebus (talk) 13:19, 20 November 2020 (MST)

I was thinking of just splitting up the page into many seperated lists (by class variants) and only listing each class one time. This would keep the loading time the same as now. Or we split up the whole page like 5e Races. --Green Dragon (talk) 15:23, 20 November 2020 (MST)

I like the idea of splitting up the classes like races. However there are lots of classes that are neither a variant nor a mashup. I don't know what to do with the 'others'. Arquebus (talk) 12:17, 22 November 2020 (MST)

Reuilding 'Class' Page

I think the first thing I will do is copy the current class page to a page something like Full List Of 5e Classes and link to it from the class page. That way we keep an unchanged copy of the current class page. Arquebus (talk) 12:54, 22 November 2020 (MST)

I think splitting up the page so 5e Classes is a hub is a good idea with the current version of 5e Classes being moved elsewhere. Currently, I think having a spellcasting list page separated by whether you are a third, half, or full spellcaster would be useful. Besides that, perhaps there could be a list page for martial-like classes as well.--Blobby383b (talk) 13:49, 22 November 2020 (MST)

In my campaign I have these four categories: 1)Martial, 2)Arcane, 3)Religious, 4)Commoner (Also I could ad Racial Classes as another type). Arquebus (talk) 14:35, 22 November 2020 (MST)

Does anyone mind if I move the 'Rebuilding Class Page' Discussion to the '5e Class' page? Arquebus (talk) 14:36, 22 November 2020 (MST)

I have created a

 [[Category:5e Class Nonvariant]] 

category for classes that can not really be thought of as a class variant or a class mashup. Arquebus (talk) 16:11, 22 November 2020 (MST)

Ihave tried creating an 5e_Arcane_Classes page, but even with just toe work I have done it is already getting pokey. Arquebus (talk) 17:17, 22 November 2020 (MST)

I don't have access to create /w/ pages so I am creating /wiki/ pages. Is this OK? Arquebus (talk) 17:17, 22 November 2020 (MST)

That is a lot of questions, but I will try and get through them all. The categories you made for the classes looks to be mostly good, though I do have some questions I will get into later(possibly on the class talk page?). As for moving conversations, it really should not be done, but from not on we could have conversations about rebuilding the class page on its talk page. The [[Category:5e Class Nonvariant]] category looks to be fine. I don't see what the issues is for the 5e Arcane Classes page, so if you are still having issues let me know. Finally, yes the pages you are creating should use /wiki/ instead of /w/.--Blobby383b (talk) 15:59, 25 November 2020 (MST)

Rewards Counter

Hey all, anyone knows how to get the rewards counter to work properly?

I can't seem to figure out how to get it to add the contents from all the pages listed in 5e Rewards such as blessings, charms, and epic boons.

—ConcealedLight (talk) 21:24, 24 May 2021 (MDT)

I am not sure what you mean by rewards counter, but you want to add a page counter for all pages of a type to 5e Rewards? If that isn't it, could you perhaps explain the problem in more detail? Regardless of what you meant though, I have added page counters to the 5e Rewards list pages where applicable.--Blobby383b (talk) 17:31, 25 May 2021 (MDT)

Replace this:

{{#dpl:debug=1|category=5e|category=Reward|notcategory=SRD|notcategory=OGL|mode=userformat|resultsheader=(%PAGES% items)}}

With this:

({{#expr:{{#dpl:debug=1|category=5e|category=Charm|notcategory=SRD|notcategory=OGL|mode=userformat|resultsheader=%PAGES%}}+{{#dpl:debug=1|category=5e|category=Blessing|notcategory=SRD|notcategory=OGL|mode=userformat|resultsheader=%PAGES%}}+{{#dpl:debug=1|category=5e|category=Epic_Boon|notcategory=SRD|notcategory=OGL|mode=userformat|resultsheader=%PAGES%}}+{{#dpl:debug=1|category=5e|category=Reward|notcategory=SRD|notcategory=OGL|mode=userformat|resultsheader=%PAGES%}}}} items)

So instead of (13 items) it will say (478 items), which is... a less inaccurate count. - Guy 05:10, 6 March 2022 (MST)

Thanks for the code. Do you know if there are any other lists that are displaying the wrong number? --Green Dragon (talk) 15:06, 7 March 2022 (MST)

Consolidating "Traps" and "Hazards" Together, as well as Adding a "Puzzles" Section

Exactly what it says on the tin. Traps and hazards are cut from the same cloth, that being passive obstacles that the players encounter and have to work around. The only major distinction is that traps are artificially designed and hazards are natural phenomenon of some kind. It seems the wiki could be cleaned up a bit by consolidating the listing of these items into one page titled "Obstacles" split into multiple sections.

Additionally, a "Puzzles" section could be added to the resulting combined page as a third type of obstacle. Currently, there isn't a great place on the wiki for people to create and/or find pages for isolated puzzles that can just be plopped into a dungeon.

The description for this new bullet "Obstacles" could be something along the line as follows: "Traps, natural hazards, puzzles and other stumbling blocks for adventurers." --ZarHakkar (talk) 00:39, 18 May 2023 (MDT)

Thinking about this overnight, I wonder if there's a bit more to be done. So, still consolidating Traps, Hazards, and Puzzles into Obstacles. The preloads for Traps and Hazards are similar enough to be consolidated into a 5e_Obstacle Preload, where we then just have different categories denoting what type of obstacle it is. I imagine Puzzles wouldn't also be too different. There is also the idea of Rooms, whole isolated setpieces that can also be placed into a dungeon. Would like some collaboration and others' thoughts on this. --ZarHakkar (talk) 13:21, 18 May 2023 (MDT)

I would support this change. I'd argue we wouldn't even need multiple sections, and could instead just use a "types" column like 5e Poisons to separate between traps, hazards, and puzzles. It would also be nice to have a dedicated April Fools section, which boths 5e Traps and 5e Hazards lacks, making them kind of frustrating to pick through.--Ref3rence (talk) 21:51, 18 May 2023 (MDT)

I agree—the distinction between a puzzle, a trap, and a hazard is pretty fuzzy anyway. Is the Bridge & Torch Problem a puzzle or an environmental hazard? How about the "Name of God" puzzle/trap from Last Crusade? Is a room where the ceiling is prone to caving in a trap or a hazard? A mine is a trap, but a minefield is a hazard. It all depends on presentation, flavor, and how the players are challenged to get around it. I would say that, for the most part, puzzles have a "correct solution", traps are hard to notice but easy to avoid, and hazards are obvious but hard to avoid, but I'm not an arbiter, so the best solution is to make the distinction more fluid. —Salasay ♄ 11:25, 19 May 2023 (MDT)

Oh, and something can also be all three, per my definition. It's hard to notice the danger, once you do there's a trick you have to use to avoid it, but the trick is still challenging to pull off. —Salasay ♄ 11:30, 19 May 2023 (MDT)

Per the 4e homebrew, I could see "Traps and Hazards" being one category, encompassing both terms easily. If that is done, I think it would be possible to just add a "solving" section (optional) to the preload so that if there is a puzzle intended, it can be solved.--Yanied (talk) 19:48, 3 April 2024 (MDT)

5e Encounters page

The existence of Troll Bridge Ambush (5e Encounter) leads me to believe that a page for homebrew 5e encounters is something dandwiki has been greatly missing for a long time now. Standalone encounters that aren't a part of a quest but can be plopped into an adventure to enrich it momentarily all the same.

Also on this page I've discussed 5e puzzles and their lack of any section or support on the site, so I was a bit concerned about overlap between them and an encounters section since I feel they fit better in with a consolidated "Traps and Hazards" or "Obstacles" section. However, I've arrived that the meaningful distinction of encounters is that they are "living" scenarios that typically involve autonomous beings and aren't meant to be "solved", while puzzles are deliberately constructed to have an intended solution.

Although that line of thinking brings up another exception: what of environmental setpieces that can be encountered while traveling such as the classic sword lodged immovably in a stone, or a fountain in a desert that endlessly trickles fresh water? Could these be considered "encounters" for this new page?

Details aside, I think a 5e Encounters section is still a good enough idea to be implemented fairly quickly, as there's plenty of room to work out said details after the fact. --ZarHakkar (talk) 21:11, 3 April 2024 (MDT)

I was thinking something along these lines recently too. A single instance of combat, interaction, or exploration that is much shorter than what would be expected in 5e Quests—this deserves it's own category and "Encounters" seems like the best term for it.

Although on that subject I wonder why 5e Quests aren't called 5e Adventures, as that seems to be the official term. - Guy 23:05, 3 April 2024 (MDT)

Having short, but still somewhat elaborated events as encounters sounds interesting. It provides the stones to build a bridge of an adventure, but in nuggets you can pick yourself, I suppose. I specify "somewhat elaborated events" to avoid someone writing a single line like "You find a funny rock" and making that whole thing a page.--Yanied (talk) 02:26, 11 December 2024 (UTC)

Suffice to say I'm still on board with this. - Guy 03:10, 11 December 2024 (UTC)

I'm going to go ahead and implement some of this then in the two-pronged way (one being tables, two being actual elucidated encounters).--Yanied (talk) 02:49, 18 December 2024 (UTC)

Including 2024

I have some worries about the current implementation of D&D (2024) homebrew. Fundamentally, D&D (2024) isn't 5e; the game never calls itself such. The fact that unique pages had to be made for species and backgrounds, as well as eventually for equipment (weapons benefit from weapon masteries now), creatures (lair actions and dragons in particular work significantly differently; attacks, saving throws, and immunities being formatted differently), and classes (different balance, universal 3rd level subclasses, different wording throughout) should be evidence enough that these should be treated like similar but separate editions, similarly to 3e and 3.5e. There's also the issue of names: trying to get users to keep "(5e Class)" at the end of their page names is a big enough hassle, tagging ", Revised" on the end (see backgrounds like Hellborn, Revised (5e Background)) is not only convoluted since it's not in the identifier itself, but makes tagging variants even more complicated (do Human, Revised (5e Race Variant) or Way of the Sun Soul, Revised (5e Subclass) use 2024 rules?). Ultimately, I think the current edition is deserving of its own section in the sidebar, be it "D&D Homebrew" (which is technically the only name the 2024 books give themselves) or "5.5e Homebrew" for the sake of consistent naming across editions (probably not "2024 Homebrew", since the Monster Manual is slated to drop in 2025), rather than cramming it on top of an edition it resembles.--Ref3rence (talk) 19:29, 24 November 2024 (MST)

I agree it should be separate.

I'm on the fence between "2024" and "5.5e." The latter plays nicer with precedent, but less informed players might not even know what 5.5e means. - Guy 20:09, 24 November 2024 (MST)

"5.5e" would be the simplest, but it is not official terminology, and it would be unclear what to do if in another 5 to 10 years another revision comes out that is still 5th edition at core ("5.75e"?).

What would page identifiers look like if we do not what them convoluted? "Hellborn (5.5e Background)", "Hellborn (2024 5e Background)", "Hellborn (Revised 5e Background)"?

It's frustrating WotC didn't give this a version number. I've scoured the lead pages of the new PHB hoping to see some kind of official terminology, best I can find is Jeremy Crawford describing this as a "revised version"; and that it is based on the "Player's Handbook (2014)".

Personally I think there is not enough different between the versions to warrant a new sidebar section. You can use legacy material in new games and vice versa. I've only identified character origins as working a little differently (Ability score adjustments being moved from race to background, and feats having types). Marasmusine (talk) 04:19, 25 November 2024 (MST)

"5'24e", "5.24e", or "5e'24" could work as well. It solves the revision problem ("5.34e") but isn't too much of an eyesore. There's also the option of straight up calling it "D&D 2024". So, "D&D 2024 Homebrew", "D&D 2024 Background"... actually maybe not, since DanDwiki probably isn't actually legally supposed to use the term "D&D" like a bunch of other third-party content based off the SRD.

As far as compatibility and differences between content, I posted a quick summary on the Discord server. Basically, 5e'24 content follows a different design paradigm than 5e'14, and if the wiki at all still cares as rigorously about balance, specifically in the ideal that a piece of homebrew from the wiki should be able to brought to any table without issue, then content made for the two versions has to have a distinction.

However, that distinction does not mean that things aren't capable of being compatible between the editions. I suggest that some 5e'14 pages can also be categorized as 5e'24 pages (evaluated on an individual basis), and vice versa, and that the DPLs in their respective 2014 and 2024 sections can be configured to accept those pages. --ZarHakkar (talk) 04:26, 25 November 2024 (MST)

I forgot to say that when I titled the article "Hellborn, Revised (5e Background)", the "Revised" was not intended to be part of an edition identifier, only that I had updated my existing page. The intention was not that ",Revised" be in all articles for the new edition. Sorry for the confusion. Marasmusine (talk) 05:12, 25 November 2024 (MST)

I think it's clear the standards are not fully compatible; the two should not be inseparable. For species, backgrounds, and epic boons (and probably high-level creatures) I'd say they're more different than PF1 and 3.5e for example. You can make one work in the other but it isn't seamless.

From what I've seen spells and non-weapon equipment are about the only things that are seamlessly compatible with both 2014 and 2024. Even feats are balanced differently and are expected to have different prerequisites.

It's difficult to predict how things will go, but I think ZarHakkar's take might be best. At the very least a contributor should be able to specify if they're trying to meet 2014 standards or 2024. That could be as simple as adding the appropriate category. The DPL could be sorted out later.

As an aside, it's possible the Free Rules (or whatever) released next year will have an official moniker like "5.5e" (or whatever). The SRD5 is the main reason marketed third-party material is labeled "fifth edition" or "5E," after all. - Guy 05:25, 25 November 2024 (MST)

I've made a launch page at 5e'24 Homebrew. Marasmusine (talk) 06:10, 25 November 2024 (MST)

My vote is for it to be called 5.5e because it fits with precedent, looks better, and frankly it's the proposed term that I think is most likely to be adopted by the community long-term. I also prefer the term 5.5e, and would like to think we still have enough sway in the community to set that example —Salasay ♄ 04:02, 30 November 2024 (UTC)

I think that we can all agree that adding the 50th Anniversary D&D content into the 5e pages is something that will make all the lists more confusing. This would likely make it harder to help users find what they are looking for, and make the overall gameplay and ruleset for people too confusing. The launch page 5e'24 Homebrew (and the discussion) should include the further integration of the new ruleset with 5e, and not here. --Green Dragon (talk) 19:45, 9 December 2024 (UTC)