D&D General Dmg previews up

[mamba]

Since when? This is the sort of thing I'm talking about when I dispute the "same edition" claim. It may use the same core math, but a lot of the game beyond the setting has been changed re-arranged, such that it simply doesn't feel like the same edition.

this would only be a reshuffling of topics between books at best (to achieve the same / a similar page number across books), without any impact on feeling like a different edition.

You can argue the art had a shift that makes the game feel different, or that the class changes result in that, but a mere reshuffling of topics? I'd even agree that art and class changes are a shift in tone, but I'd also argue that they only have caught up with what 5e has been for a while already and just did not dare admit to itself.

 

[Parmandur]

Maybe the MM is seen as a collection of stat-blocks and associated descriptions, rather than extensive setting material?

We do know, from the handful of preview pages, that the MM will have some lore and flavor for the NPCs and creatures...but it might make sense for the big, cosmic stuff that took up so much real estate in 20q4 to go to the Lore Glossary in the DMG, as a complete picture of the workings of the lower planes seems more proper there.

 

[Azzy]

Maybe the MM is seen as a collection of stat-blocks and associated descriptions, rather than extensive setting material?

Given how little descriptive text that the 5.24 PHB has compared to the 5.14 PHB, as well as MotM, I think that that's likely.

 

[Micah Sweet]

this would only be a reshuffling of topics between books at best (to achieve the same / a similar page number across books), without any impact on feeling like a different edition.

You can argue the art had a shift that makes the game feel different, or that the class changes result in that, but a mere reshuffling of topics? I'd even agree that art and class changes are a shift in tone, but I'd also argue that they only have caught up with what 5e has been for a while already and just did not dare admit to itself.

You're welcome to disagree of course, but I see the shuffling of topics between books as one more thing that damages that D&D feel to me, because it's saying this or that book is no longer about what it used to be about to some degree. Another example: when 4e moved the magic items from the DMG to the PH, it damaged my feeling that 4e was still D&D as I knew it. When you add a ton of very specific setting lore to a book like the DMG that previously had little to none of that across it's history, it IMO damages the feel of it being D&D as I know it.

I'm sure a lot of people will like it, and I expect pushing the brand and IP this hard in the DMG is something WotC expects will drive sales of the book to more than just DMs, but to me it feels uncomfortable and off-putting. My two cents.

 

[mamba]

You're welcome to disagree of course, but I see the shuffling of topics between books as one more thing that damages that D&D feel to me, because it's saying this or that book is no longer about what it used to be about to some degree. Another example: when 4e moved the magic items from the DMG to the PH, it damaged my feeling that 4e was still D&D as I knew it. When you add a ton of very specific setting lore to a book like the DMG that previously had little to none of that across it's history, it IMO damages the feel of it being D&D as I know it.

moving between PHB and the other books is more 'drastic' than between DMG and MM to me. The PHB is player facing, the other two are not, so moving from MM to DMG still keeps it DM information.

To me, if there is setting information, the DMG is the best place for it. The PHB should not have any and the MM monsters should be essentially setting agnostic too (as opposed to monster descriptions).

 

[Hussar]

I’m sorry but why discuss the “feel” of DnD with someone who refuses to play the game for years? I’m going out on a limb here and say that if someone hasn’t played DnD for four or five years, and has publicly stated theyd rather read the game than play it, then their idea of the “feel” of the game is never going to line up with anyone else’s.

 

[pemerton]

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

Seriously, why?

Maybe the MM is seen as a collection of stat-blocks and associated descriptions, rather than extensive setting material?

Since when?

I've got no secret knowledge here. I'm just offering a conjecture that fits with what I know, and that doesn't seem too unreasonable.

This is the sort of thing I'm talking about when I dispute the "same edition" claim. It may use the same core math, but a lot of the game beyond the setting has been changed re-arranged, such that it simply doesn't feel like the same edition.

I don't really know how allocation of content into various books relates to this vexed issue of edition.

I mean, edition is ultimately a publishing concept, not a rules or a gameplay concept.

 

[UngeheuerLich]

It's one of the reasons why I'm still baffled at their choice to make crits "roll twice the dice" rather than the dramatically simpler "use maximized damage." Because maximum of NdX +N is essentially identical to average 2NdX.

Fixed that.

 

[EzekielRaiden]

Fixed that.

I mean, sure, if you want exact mathematical equality to the center of the distribution for 2NdX. But you'll note I said "essentially." I did so for a reason. For the vast majority of things that can crit, this will mean a difference between 1 and 4 points. Maybe 6-7 if you've stacked several benefits on top of each other (e.g. BM maneuver and a fancy greatsword, or a magical buff and (5.0) Divine Smite + Improved Divine Smite).

So you're missing, say, 6 points from an attack doing 24+8+8+5 = 45 (13.3%) or 7 from one doing 24+16+8+5 = 53 (13.2%). The goal of the rule is getting the greatest simplicity possible without excessive sacrifice in effect (or excessive power-up, but that's not relevant here.) "Maximize the damage roll" is a very, very simple rule--in nearly all cases it's a simple multiplication of two one-digit numbers. "Maximize the damage, and add more damage equal to the number of dice you would roll" is less simple. I won't call it complex, but the point was that giving up a relatively small proportion of damage (on the order of 12% or less of the 2dX value in most cases...mostly because most weapon dice are d6s or d8s), you get a rule that is dirt-simple, about as simple as it is possible to be. That's a worthwhile trade-off, particularly in an edition that made "streamlining" and simplification part of the ethos of this edition.

I guess your rule would be more beneficial to Rogues, since crits do double sneak attack dice and 5.0 was not especially kind to Rogues. But that could be patched by just making SA scale by 1d6+1, rather than just 1d6, each time it improves--while upping Rogue base damage to boot, which is frankly all to the good, IMO.

 

[The Myopic Sniper]

Honor and sanity aren't. 7th ability scores rarely work well in D&D as the system isn't built to balance for them.

For a game like D&D, I am pretty sure any sensitivity reader in 2024 would raise big concerns about both Honor and Sanity mechanics on the spot for having problematic historical roots.

The designers could substitute in a Loyalty mechanic that DMs could reflavor as Honor or Sanity, but they would probably avoid usage of either of those particular terms.