Talk:Class Do's and Don'ts (5e Guideline)

Overly helpful. Thanks for suggesting this!(b^_^)b -BDconrad

Excellent

I find this well-written and useful, but I feel the title should contain clear descriptors instead of an idiom: perhaps "Class Design Philosophy" or just "Class Design" or something similar? —Proton^[talk] 17:50, 28 March 2016 (MDT)

Terminology Update

What about including a list of terminology from older generations, which people keep using in 5e, along with their correct terminology in 5e. Main example: "Times Per Day is not a 5e mechanic". We keep on running into this, where people refer to fortitude saves, or they assume a condition works the way it did in a previous edition.

Good idea.

• Fortitude save - use "Constitution" or "Strength saving throw".
• Will save - most commonly "Wisdom saving throw", but Charisma or Intelligence are sometimes more appropriate.
• Reflex save - use "Dexterity saving throw"
• Full round action - not used.

(Actually, that turns into, "Until the beginning/end of your next turn" or, "Until the beginning/end of the target's next turn". --Kydo (talk) 03:25, 6 June 2016 (MDT))

I was thinking in terms of the (what I think is the most-used) example of needing a full-round action to make all your BAB iterative attacks, and that you could only take a 5-foot step. I can't think of any core book examples of actions that also prevent you from moving. Marasmusine (talk) 07:18, 6 June 2016 (MDT)

Concentration? --Kydo (talk) 08:26, 6 June 2016 (MDT)

"Normal activity, such as moving and attacking, doesn't interfere with concentration." Marasmusine (talk) 08:45, 6 June 2016 (MDT)

Learn something new every day. All looks good to me! --Kydo (talk) 10:52, 6 June 2016 (MDT)

• Move action - not used. Movement is no longer a discreet action.

(I think it is, in a theoretical sense, but you have an unlimited number of them up until you consume your movement resource- speed. They just aren't an "Action" type by name. --Kydo (talk) 03:25, 6 June 2016 (MDT))

• Attack of opportunity - now it's "opportunity attack".
• Minor action or swift action - use "bonus action"
• Free action - not used. Examples from SRD:Free Actions: Dropping an item is not an action (while putting one down is an object interaction [p. 190]); dropping prone is part of your movement (p. 190); speaking is "other activity" (p. 190); ending concentration on a spell is not an action (p. 203); casting a quickened spell is a bonus action (p. 102)

(I'm still murky on the boundary between "object interactions" and "other activity". That whole paragraph is just so vague and muddled. --Kydo (talk) 03:25, 6 June 2016 (MDT))

• Immediate action - use "reaction"; don't forget to say what triggers it.
• Supernatural, Spell-like and Extraordinary - not used. A spellcasting feature is declared as such, and attacks can be designated as weapon or spell. The actual features have no designation.
• "Times Per Encounter" - Becomes "Use(s) of this feature is/are restored after a short rest." --Kydo (talk) 03:25, 6 June 2016 (MDT)
• "Times Per Day" - Becomes "Use(s) of this feature is/are restored after a long rest." --Kydo (talk) 03:25, 6 June 2016 (MDT)
• "DR" (e.g. "10 DR/all") - See damage resistance, PHB p. 197. Marasmusine (talk) 00:57, 11 June 2016 (MDT)

I think that sums up everything I've seen that keeps leaking over into the new edition. Safe to add them to the main page? --Kydo (talk) 01:50, 11 June 2016 (MDT)

Yeah. Add to it as you come across them! Marasmusine (talk) 09:36, 11 June 2016 (MDT)

Thanks for adding that part about feats. I have grown very tired of people arguing, "There's a feat for that.". --Kydo (talk) 16:18, 14 June 2016 (MDT)

Feats

I've yet to see a page that properly references feats, but I don't think we should disallow them being referenced. They're optional, yes, but they're technically in the core rules. They're even in the SRD, unlike some other optional rules. AD&D 2e had non-weapon proficiencies which were technically optional, but most everything assumed you used them. But even then, some of the classes said that even if NWPs aren't used, the character gains the benefit of them. So a 5e class could just as easily say you gain the benefit of feat x, but that feat x does not stack.

Can't we just require a disclaimer?--GamerAim (talk) 08:10, 5 August 2017 (MDT)

You could use Template:Design Note - "This class uses the optional set of rules for feats." - but then what if you you don't want to use feats? It's the equivalent of an ASI, so you could say can gain an ASI or a the feat. But then we're back to how it's handled in the PHB - the only difference is you're forcing a particular feat instead of allowing a free choice of feat.

I believe that class features should work in conjunction with feats if the campaign uses them. If you want to encourage certain feats, you can put that in the quick build ("when you reach 4th level, take the duel wielder feat" or whatever) Marasmusine (talk) 11:08, 5 August 2017 (MDT)

I don't know much about the 5e feats, but I'm saying, what if someone wants a class to provide the same benefit as a feat. Do you say "This feature does not stack with the X feat?" For instance, in AD&D 2e, the ranger got the Tracking NWP for free at level 1. It says that if you use NWP, it comes at no cost. If you don't, the player gets the benefit of Track anyway, but it's a class feature. If someone doesn't want to use feats, then they just consider the feat a class feature, but without writing something redundant in place of the feat.--GamerAim (talk) 13:53, 5 August 2017 (MDT)

Name Change

I think this is a really useful page no matter if you're working on a class, race, background or diety and believe it should be renamed to something else. What does everyone think of moving this page to Do's and Dont's (5e Guideline)? --ConcealedLight (talk) 01:03, 24 May 2018 (MDT)

The page is extremely helpful when figuring out general know hows of creating content in 5e. I an unsure however, if renaming it is the correct choice through as several of the points on the page are specific to classes. If anything, I think that just increasing users exposer to this page will help them when creating content.--Blobby383b (talk) 21:42, 25 May 2018 (MDT)

Maybe 5e Do's and Dont's (5e Guideline)? --ConcealedLight (talk) 00:35, 26 May 2018 (MDT)

Isn't the first "5e" redundant?--GamerAim (talk) 05:11, 26 May 2018 (MDT)

Oh! Right. --ConcealedLight (talk) 18:53, 26 May 2018 (MDT)