D&D (2024) What do you want in the revised DMG?

[MNblockhead]

@Mordhau Okay, that's cool. Side bars with examples, suggestions on dealing with edge case and cross references to other rules are always welcome by me. Lengthy digressions on why they chose to go with one mechanic over another, why they changed something from a prior edition, etc. belongs elsewhere IMO.

 

[tetrasodium]

Yeah I remember reading 5e a lot of times and thinking "just tell us what you intend here"*. A lot of forum arguments about stealth might have been avoided if they'd just had a 13th Age style sidebar which told us something like "this is how we intend to use stealth, or perhaps more importantly, this is how difficult we intend it to be to get Sneak Attack, so in the case of the Rogue and hiding err on the side of being permissive".

*I appreciate that Mike Mearls use to do that sometimes on twitter but it would have been better in the book. In contrast Jeremy Crawford's often legalistic parsing of the rules seems a completely dysfunctional approach.

The omission is especially bad because d&d used to have thst kind of stuff in the 3.5 dmg's behind the curtain sidebars that went into exploring the crunch and intent as appropriate. In a lot of cases (like awarding xp) those sidebars are still more useful than the 5e equivalent for a 5e dm.

 

[Lyxen]

The omission is especially bad because d&d used to have thst kind of stuff in the 3.5 dmg's behind the curtain sidebars that went into exploring the crunch and intent as appropriate. In a lot of cases (like awarding xp) those sidebars are still more useful than the 5e equivalent for a 5e dm.

And, maybe one day, people will accept that 5e is fundamentally different from 3.5, that crunch is certainly not at the core of it, and that not exploring it stems from the same philosophy of having a game that is accessible to all without the need of special jargon and explanations (and which is certainly part of what made 5e a success). Whatever happens with the 2024 version of 5e, I really, really hope that it stays on the line that 5e has walked since it was created with a heavy resistance towards providing more crunch, as it was the uncontrolled multiplication of crunch was the downfall of 3e (which had great ideas at its core nonetheless).

 

[MNblockhead]

And, maybe one day, people will accept that 5e is fundamentally different from 3.5, that crunch is certainly not at the core of it, and that not exploring it stems from the same philosophy of having a game that is accessible to all without the need of special jargon and explanations (and which is certainly part of what made 5e a success). Whatever happens with the 2024 version of 5e, I really, really hope that it stays on the line that 5e has walked since it was created with a heavy resistance towards providing more crunch, as it was the uncontrolled multiplication of crunch was the downfall of 3e (which had great ideas at its core nonetheless).

I agree, but I also think that 5e is a big tent. I wouldn't want to the core more crunchy, but I there is certainly a demand for more crunch and that demand will likely continue to grow the longer the system live on and as more of the newer players beginning looking for more ways to add to the game. I think WotC has done a good job at slowly releasing new options and crunch, but they are spread throughout so many different books that it is getting inconvenient to read them together and more difficult to easily reference them--especially if you are using the physical books. That's why I would like a revised DMG that is a well organized collection of modular options that can be added to the core game.

DnD Beyond is a great resource for monsters, magic items, and spells because it makes a useful and convenient interface that consolidates these. It is okay with character options. It is not very helpful with combat rules, downtime activity, and most other crunch. Even the search functionality returns too much noise to signal.

 

[Lyxen]

I agree, but I also think that 5e is a big tent. I wouldn't want to the core more crunchy, but I there is certainly a demand for more crunch and that demand will likely continue to grow the longer the system live on and as more of the newer players beginning looking for more ways to add to the game.

I'm honestly not sure, I think the demand from crunch mostly comes from previous editions players.

I think WotC has done a good job at slowly releasing new options and crunch, but they are spread throughout so many different books that it is getting inconvenient to read them together and more difficult to easily reference them--especially if you are using the physical books. That's why I would like a revised DMG that is a well organized collection of modular options that can be added to the core game.

I'm fine with this, as long as the less interesting ones are removed, and not too much is added.

 

[Lakesidefantasy]

Get those monster lists out of the Dungeon Master's Guide and into the Monster Manual where it belongs.

 

[Lyxen]

Get those monster lists out of the Dungeon Master's Guide and into the Monster Manual where it belongs.

Aren't the monsters list more related to world building ?

 

[Li Shenron]

This isn't necessarily about the topic, but the responses did make me wonder if there was a correlation between folks who want more robust and concrete encounter creation rules and folks who do not like or refuse to fudge dice rolls and/or adjust encounters mid-fight?

Honestly, I don't know if there is a correlation there or not, but I do know that for me I've never worried about making sure my encounters were built "balanced" in order to give me the really precise result of difficulty I was looking for because I do not have any problem having extra monsters just show up to make the fight more difficult (even if my notes didn't say they were there) or just removing a monster that got hit for 30 points and was left with 1 HP remaining (so I just call it dead), or any other tricks like that to "self-balance" the fights on a case-by-case basis.

It just seems like the people who would prefer not to "wing it" have a reason for not wanting to... and the idea that they do not want to adjust the encounter mid-encounter due to however they see the verisimilitude of the game to be, might be a strong reason for that? I dunno? It's just something I noticed and was curious about.

Interesting note.

Personally I do not value the idea of setting the difficulty "precisely", which actually sounds like a ridiculous illusion to me. At the same time, I also do not generally adjust the encounter mid-fight, if it turns out easier/harder than expected then I consider it part of the fun.

 

[dave2008]

Aren't the monsters list more related to world building ?

Maybe, but you still need the MM for your world building. I don't really care, but putting them in the MM seems reasonable.

 

[DEFCON 1]

Interesting note.

Personally I do not value the idea of setting the difficulty "precisely", which actually sounds like a ridiculous illusion to me.

Yeah, I wouldn't think so either... but it just seems that whenever there are comments and threads about the CR system and encounter building rules there are people who talk as though the numbers should be quite rigorous in their use and effectiveness. Now maybe I'm reading more into it than is intended from them (entirely possible), but the power of some responses seem to imply that they are very upset that the rules do not work as well as they think they should.