D&D 5E Some Gems I Have Forgotten In The DMG

[dave2008]

Removed are: Sanity and Honor rules, madness rules, etc

Why remove the Sanity, Honor, and Madness rules?

 

[dave2008]

The eyeroll is for the (IME extremely common) attitude where anything "optional" is derided for being optional (and God forbid you suggest anything homebrew)....but literally anything, anything whatsoever, no matter how tenuous or untested, that the DM personally comes up with is utterly beyond reproach.

Like I have straight-up had people, here and elsewhere, tell me that official variants are bad because they change things...and then also (separately) say that they personally change things. In other words, their behavior calls into question their alleged principles, and instead makes their opposition look capricious (on top of making it look like they are either in denial about their bias, or aware of it but trying to keep it hidden.)

I've never noticed that attitude here (and I've been here since, wait for it,...2008), but I don't doubt it exists.

 

[Tales and Chronicles]

Why remove the Sanity, Honor, and Madness rules?

I think it would make more sense to add them to adventures or campaign setting that uses them as central theme (Out of the Abyss, Curse of Strahd etc) much like ToA had its own list of diseases and special rules for Death Saves.

 

[doctorbadwolf]

For our table, I prefer sticking as much as possible to the official WotC rulebooks - including many (but certainly not all) of the variant/optional rules. Easiest way for our group to maintain consistency about what to expect. I do reserve the right to tweak monsters, traps, treasure as I see fit to make for an enjoyable, fresh, and varied experience for the group, though.

Yeah to me it’s two separate questions. My most “RAW” DM friend still uses the occasional homebrew or houserule.

 

[cbwjm]

Perhaps one of the best gems in the DMG:

Disclaimer: Wizards of the Coast does not officially endorse the following tactics, which are guaranteed to maximize your enjoyment as a Dungeon Master. First, always keep a straight face and say OK no matter how ludicrous or doomed the players’ plan of action is. Second, no matter what happens, pretend that you intended all along for everything to unfold the way it did. Third, if you’re not sure what to do next, feign illness, end the session early, and plot your next move. When all else fails, roll a bunch of dice behind your screen, study them for a moment with a look of deep concern mixed with regret, let loose a heavy sigh, and announce that Tiamat swoops from the sky and attacks.

 

[Azzy]

So this thread inspired me to pull out my 5e DM Cheat sheet and here is the list of DMG rules I reference for improv (sorry I don't have the page numbers listed on my sheet):

• Monster Stats by Challenge Rating
• Typical DCs
• Object AC
• Object Hit Points
• Improvised Damage
• Damage Severity by Level

EDIT: Here is snip of the sheet
View attachment 156803

What's the rest of your sheet look like (if there's more)?

 

[Seramus]

Disclaimer: Wizards of the Coast does not officially endorse the following tactics, which are guaranteed to maximize your enjoyment as a Dungeon Master. First, always keep a straight face and say OK no matter how ludicrous or doomed the players’ plan of action is. Second, no matter what happens, pretend that you intended all along for everything to unfold the way it did. Third, if you’re not sure what to do next, feign illness, end the session early, and plot your next move. When all else fails, roll a bunch of dice behind your screen, study them for a moment with a look of deep concern mixed with regret, let loose a heavy sigh, and announce that Tiamat swoops from the sky and attacks.

Not the DMG, but there's also this one!

 

[Teemu]

Bolded bit: Because it's a 4e-ism.

Like I'm pretty sure that's the reason for a significant chunk of people. The rest probably just don't know it's there, or don't consider using it because, in my experience, 5e DMs are not actually that favorable to variant rules or experimentation. (Unless it's experimentation they personally created--that's always 100% fine. )

Nah. The 5e marking is fiddly as hell. It's a perfect example of a half-baked variant rule that clearly wasn't thoroughly playtested. I've used it and discarded it after a few sessions. Everyone marks with every attack. It's a nightmare to track. One of the worst variant rules I've tried!

 

[teitan]

The eyeroll is for the (IME extremely common) attitude where anything "optional" is derided for being optional (and God forbid you suggest anything homebrew)....but literally anything, anything whatsoever, no matter how tenuous or untested, that the DM personally comes up with is utterly beyond reproach.

Like I have straight-up had people, here and elsewhere, tell me that official variants are bad because they change things...and then also (separately) say that they personally change things. In other words, their behavior calls into question their alleged principles, and instead makes their opposition look capricious (on top of making it look like they are either in denial about their bias, or aware of it but trying to keep it hidden.)

I have an eye roll for people who assume something is a core rule when it’s optional. Had a session where a player said I get advantage because I’m flanking. I said no that’s an optional rule. He paused the game for 15 minutes while looking it up on DDB. I had the page in the DMG open in less than a minute waiting for him to find it. Similar discussion on feats. He was surprised to find even races are optional rules.

I’ll note that I use most of the optional rules. The flanking rules are just not good compared to previous iterations though.

 

[EzekielRaiden]

How many DMs have you played with in the last few years and how many of those deride the variant/optional rules? Not doubting that you do encounter it, I just think "extremely common" is... a bit of hyperbole.

Technically it would be more attempted to play with rather than actually played with. But I'd say something like a dozen? And several more that I did not even bother with because they made this stance so clear.

It's also...I mean come on. How many people have you seen on this forum who get real super testy about anyone even mildly "assuming" that they'll be able to take feats? This is not some strange, alien thing. LOTS of 5e DMs treat really basic "optional" rules like they're stinky garbage.

Not at all defending the DMs you've encountered, but I do think there is a big difference between player-sided homebrew for their personal character and the stuff a DM introduces into a campaign to provide a fun, challenging experience for all.

In any case, it sounds like maybe you're experiencing some bad faith DMing. Sorry for that.

I mean, I'm sure there's some of that. This is being worn pretty openly, as noted above. I admit that a portion of this is that yes, I did have some player-made homebrew that I was shopping around to try to find a game where I could playtest it (fully open to the idea that it would need fixes).

I can't say I've seen that here on ENWorld but, then again, I skim quite a bit when I see particular names that often bring a lot of negativity to conversations - so perhaps I've selectively missed such posts.

For our table, I prefer sticking as much as possible to the official WotC rulebooks - including many (but certainly not all) of the variant/optional rules. Easiest way for our group to maintain consistency about what to expect. I do reserve the right to tweak monsters, traps, treasure as I see fit to make for an enjoyable, fresh, and varied experience for the group, though.

Both of which are fine (though as I have said, I am super not keen on changes of that sort when they're already in play.)

On reflection, I should note that there is one area where (official) variant rules are embraced almost to the point of replacing the usual ones: resting and healing, to make either harder and less frequent. Though even there it tends to get replaced by whichever even more strident houserules the DM fancies on that front.

This comes across like you’re maybe a bit too into trying to judge people’s motivations for liking and disliking things…

Why do you care?

Because it's an attitude that has made my gaming more frustrating and more difficult, and because it has led to what I see as a dominant gaming culture opposed to some of the things I see as important to a healthy game.

Nah. The 5e marking is fiddly as hell. It's a perfect example of a half-baked variant rule that clearly wasn't thoroughly playtested. I've used it and discarded it after a few sessions. Everyone marks with every attack. It's a nightmare to track. One of the worst variant rules I've tried!

Ah, that's right. I remember now that I'd looked at it and thought there was some kind of issue, but it's been a while.

I have an eye roll for people who assume something is a core rule when it’s optional. Had a session where a player said I get advantage because I’m flanking. I said no that’s an optional rule. He paused the game for 15 minutes while looking it up on DDB. I had the page in the DMG open in less than a minute waiting for him to find it. Similar discussion on feats. He was surprised to find even races are optional rules.

I’ll note that I use most of the optional rules. The flanking rules are just not good compared to previous iterations though.

No real comment on the benefits or flaws of the flanking rules specifically. Just noting that this is kinda in the direction of what I was referring to. This seeming need to emphasize "yeah, don't trust anything the book tells you, you never know what's in the game unless the DM explicitly tells you," with a frequent side of "sorry we can't give you any advice AT ALL because of that."