D&D General Dmg previews up

[MonsterEnvy]

That just seems weird too. I really don't understand a lot of the larger scope changes in 5.5. They don't make sense to me.

This has been their plan for a while, they started separating things that don’t share a name around Fizban’s.

 

[Micah Sweet]

I understand most of them, but I do not like the organization changes proposed for the monster manual.

They already did them in that strange "update but not an update" book MMoM (or something). I didn't like them then either.

 

[Micah Sweet]

This has been their plan for a while, they started separating things that don’t share a name around Fizban’s.

I know. I don't like it, and I don't see the value in it.

 

[MonsterEnvy]

I understand most of them, but I do not like the organization changes proposed for the monster manual.

Likewise I prefer having a massive D section to having tons of those creatures spread around the book. I prefer finding White Dragons under D, rather than at the back of the book under W.

 

[dave2008]

I know. I don't like it, and I don't see the value in it.

well, you don't see the value in a lot of things they do. What they do seems to be working for them, so it seems your values don't align with a lot of D&D players / buyers. I have the same problem (though different specifics) too.

 

[MonsterEnvy]

I know. I don't like it, and I don't see the value in it.

I understand their logic, but also am not the biggest fan of it. My biggest objection to it was that it would result in the loss of the overviews, but if the overviews are being moved to the DMG, then it’s only a slight annoyance as I am not losing anything.

 

[Micah Sweet]

well, you don't see the value in a lot of things they do. What they do seems to be working for them, so it seems your values don't align with a lot of D&D players / buyers. I have the same problem (though different specifics) too.

I really they had just made a new edition. It would have been so much easier just to make clean break with them. The current half-way situation is messy and annoying.

 

[Micah Sweet]

I understand their logic, but also am not the biggest fan of it. My biggest objection to it was that it would result in the loss of the overviews, but if the overviews are being moved to the DMG, then it’s only a slight annoyance as I am not losing anything.

Why would overviews about monsters not be in the book about monsters?

Seriously, why?

 

[W'rkncacnter]

I think it makes sense if they are breaking up the Monster sections like they seem to be planning. If they are being spread around alphabetically like how they mentioned Gelatinous Cube is now under G instead of O in the Ooze section, that means the overviews for things like Dragons, Demons, Devils, and Giants would be leaving the Monster Manual. Putting the overviews in the lore glossary would make sense in that case.

wow. even just reading this hurts my soul. i can't imagine trying to actually FIND anything in a book like that.

First, I am not comparing it other RPGs, but to entertainment value per dollar. If I get 2 hrs entrainment out of a movie it cost me roughly $5 per hour. D&D cost me about $0.10 per hour or less. That is really just counting playing time, not the extra hours of enjoyment that I get from DMing and just reading the books.

but dnd isn't (or at least shouldn't try to be) competing with movies, is it? it's competing with other ttrpgs, and lots of other ttrpgs can get you that same value. it makes more sense to me to compare the value of a ttrpg to that of other ttrpgs, not to movies or video games or any other medium.

 

[Maxperson]

the 2E art sparked my imagination so hard I can't honestly say I'd have gotten into D&D like I did without it.

For me it was the 2e lore. Every time I read a juicy bit of 2e lore, 20 ideas spring into my head and I promptly forget 21 of them. Whenever I'm stuck for an idea, I just pick up some 2e book and read a few passages of lore and I'm off to the races.