D&D 5E "People complain, but don't actually read the DMG!" Which sections specifically?

[EzekielRaiden]

Things like this make me think this shouldn't be a 5E-specific thread, since this particular issue has been around since at least Third Edition.

Revisiting Encounter Design

One of the first reviews I ever received for a book I had written was for the mini-adventure The Dragon's Wish, which was published by Fantasy Flight Games during the early D20 boom. The reviewer hate

thealexandrian.net

It's absolutely an issue with every edition. Can't say how many times I've seen issues with "old-school" editions where someone says, "Wait, the books say WHAT?" and people realize that there's this whole chunk of rules that they never knew about after 20 years of play. Or the number of times I've had conversations with people who insist that 4e absolutely required encounters in perfect lockstep with character level. Despite, y'know, the explicit instructions in the 4e DMG not to do that.

I've never really seen this as actually proving anything about whether "people" read the DMG. Just that any particular factoid is guaranteed to have been missed by some people, and the internet is specifically made to magnetically attract "have read X fact" and "have not read X fact" people together for infuriating conversations.

 

[Jacob Lewis]

I think all DMGs in any edition have been pretty bad books. It's been a good decade since I last read the 3rd edition one, but from my memory, it didn't get any more use than the 5th one. It's the treasure tome.

In previous editions, the answers to rules questions were made accessible to players in a Rules Compendium. Unfortunately, they don't put these out until they are near the end of an edition's run.

 

[Oofta]

Crawford has said that they expect Rogues to be able to get Advantage every single Round of combat, so it is supposed to be easy for players to do.

Can you provide a source? Sneak attack yes, advantage ... I just don't think it's necessary.

 

[jmartkdr2]

There are a ton of ways to get Advantage.

Can you name any cost-free pones other than flanking?

 

[Voadam]

Yeah, the structure is Byzantine and wonky, which is why reading the whole thing will prevent misunderstandings.

No, reading the whole structurally byzantine and wonky thing will not necessarily prevent misunderstandings.

Bad structure can bury important parts, put a focus on not essential parts, and obscure that different parts can be contradictory or do not work well together. The DMG is long. Reading all of a long convoluted thing is usually not sufficient on its own to prevent misunderstandings.

The 1e DMG is similar, even having read the whole thing cover to cover it is tough to get a handle on complex things with lots of moving parts and different design considerations going on at the same time.

Laws can be similarly byzantine and wonky and difficult to get a precise handle on.

 

[Voadam]

Can you name any cost-free pones other than flanking?

Attacking someone who is blind, paralyzed, prone within five feet of the attacker, restrained, or stunned. Attacking while invisible.

Narratively things that give you an advantage subject to a DM judgment call could include charging, high ground, flanking, possibly feinting, a distracted or tricked opponent, an intimidated opponent, and most everything else that mechanically gave an advantage in a prior edition. Other creative appropriate things are possible too.

 

[Lyxen]

No, reading the whole structurally byzantine and wonky thing will not necessarily prevent misunderstandings.
The 1e DMG is similar, even having read the whole thing cover to cover it is tough to get a handle on complex things with lots of moving parts and different design considerations going on at the same time.

I'm sorry, but are you really comparing the AD&D1 DMG and that from 5e ? Honestly...

But if you think you can do better, by all means, dazzle us with your incredible publications.

The DMG simply tackles a great number of subjects, just read this thread and the fact that people just want more subjects and more details, etc. It does not have to have a structure and be read as a book.

 

[Mannahnin]

Attacking someone who is blind, paralyzed, prone within five feet of the attacker, restrained, or stunned. Attacking while invisible.

Narratively things that give you an advantage subject to a DM judgment call could include charging, high ground, flanking, possibly feinting, a distracted or tricked opponent, an intimidated opponent, and most everything else that mechanically gave an advantage in a prior edition. Other creative appropriate things are possible too.

That's kind of the point, though. Everything on that first list generally has a cost (usually a spell, though sometimes an action with an opposed roll, like for prone) to impose it. The flanking optional rule in 5E is functionally "free" in most circumstances.

 

[Filthy Lucre]

In 3e, 4e, and Pathfinder 1 and 2, movement has a cost. In 3e/PF1, movement other than a 5' step takes a move action, and provokes attacks of opportunity. 4e is similar, except (IIRC) even a 5' step ("shift") costs a move action. And in PF2, movement would take at least one of your three actions per turn and might provoke an attack of opportunity, although they're not as common there. In addition, in all these games the benefit of flanking is +2 to hit (expressed as "combat advantage" in 4e and the opponent being "flat-footed" in PF2, which can be relevant because it means it doesn't stack with other things giving those things). In other words, flanking in each of those games is kind of hard to do, for a moderate reward.

But in 5e, movement is easy. Movement doesn't compete with your other actions, at least not as long as you don't move more than your speed. And movement doesn't provoke attacks of opportunity, unless you're leaving an opponent's reach. These are mostly good things, as it lends itself to more mobile combat. But if you add flanking to that, you basically get free advantage on melee attacks. That very much devalues other means of getting advantage, such as the barbarian's Reckless Attack.

This is why I think, at least for me and my table, PF2e is the superior combat rules set. When playing D&D 5e it seems like unless you're in a very specific situation, or have a very very specific build, there's really no point on knocking someone prone except in edge cases. It doesn't really 'cost' them anything. Someone is going to be pedantic and say that it costs half your movement, but for someone in melee that doesn't really matter. They're where they want to be. I think the most plausible counter example/edge case is if you knocked someone prone who was trying to flee.

I really like that there is a 3 point action economy that can contain actual decision points. You have to weigh opportunity costs.

 

[Lyxen]

This is why I think, at least for me and my table, PF2e is the superior combat rules set.

If what you are looking for is a rather complex combat, I would agree. But it's not the intent of 5e, which has been designed to be simple, easy, and more than anything extremely quick. And honestly no one at our tables hasa any regrets about spending full evenings just for one fight, and it not being even completely over by the end of the evening.

When playing D&D 5e it seems like unless you're in a very specific situation, or have a very very specific build, there's really no point on knocking someone prone except in edge cases. It doesn't really 'cost' them anything. Someone is going to be pedantic and say that it costs half your movement, but for someone in melee that doesn't really matter. They're where they want to be. I think the most plausible counter example/edge case is if you knocked someone prone who was trying to flee.
I really like that there is a 3 point action economy that can contain actual decision points. You have to weigh opportunity costs.

The problem for me is that you just want technical benefits from the actions, and expect these to come from the rules. However, at our table, no-one would even think about knocking someone down just to potentially get technical benefits (because it's silly, you have very sharp weapons and spells that are much more efficient in most cases), they would do it because it makes sense in the world, and when they do, they get story-empowered advantage to whatever they are doing if it's appropriate (and it very often is).

After that, to each his own, it really depends where the fun at your table is in terms of combat. If you want to combo technical effects, I agree that 5e is certainly not the best system for that, however, if you want lightning quick story orientated combat, it's much much better, in particular because you will not be stopped by a player telling you "but you can't do that, the rules say on page 293 that...".