D&D (2024) Kobold Press posts 2024 DMG Hit Piece

[Maxperson]

Even though I won't use it, I really like that the back of the map of the Greyhawk region actually has Greyhawk the city...

I think the map is great, even if I don't agree with some of the renaming.

 

[Micah Sweet]

The book has something on house rules up near the front.

It feels odd to me to say that just because the core book doesn't offer something means they have no intention to support it. Is there any reason WotC can't do a supplement akin to PF 1e's "Unchained" that was chock full of optional rules systems?

Not really no, but what makes you think WotC doing so is an any way likely? 3pp, On the other hand, has been handling that kind of support since 5e came out a decade ago. Since the 5.5 core has explicitly moved away from mechanically supporting alternate playstyles, why would anyone interested in them buy it?

The only thing that book has in it that I would like to have access to (because I can adapt parts of it to my play) is the bastion chapter, but I'm not paying $50 for just that.

(And I have read a good deal of the 5.5 DMG at this point, so I'm not guessing here).

 

[Maxperson]

The book has something on house rules up near the front.

It feels odd to me to say that just because the core book doesn't offer something means they have no intention to support it. Is there any reason WotC can't do a supplement akin to PF 1e's "Unchained" that was chock full of optional rules systems?

WotC has been highly allergic to putting out books that have much more than fluff in them. A book supporting optional rules, a UA if you will, isn't something I have high faith in them to release, or within a decent amount of time after the core books come out if they do end up releasing such a book. I may be pleasantly surprised, but nothing from the last 10 years indicates to me that I will be.

 

[Remathilis]

Doing it their way certainly focuses the book on the playstyle they now want to emphasize, but it does tell a segment of the customer base that what they want, are interested in for their games, and were happy to pay them for, is no longer something they are interested in supporting. And all without changing the edition no less, something which IMO would be logical to do when you make a visible philosophical shift in implied and supported playstyle like this. Being unwilling to throw more money at WotC at this point is I think a measured, intelligent choice given that situation.

You're missing the point. The 2014 options worked because WE (the DMs) knew how to make them work. For example, there is an option to make short rests 5 minutes and long rests an hour. It's called epic heroism and it's given two whole paragraphs in the DMG. The only suggestion it gives is couched in "you may want to" and that's still "slow down spell slot recovery and consider using harder fights".

Now, you and I know that making rests that easy means PCs will chew through material much above their level, the encounter guidelines are useless, treasure needs to be reduced to compensate, and there is absolutely no way you can run any adventure as written. We know this because we are familiar with the general balance of D&D and 5e in particular. But what does a new DM (or one who doesn't dive into the metrics of the game, there are DMs who don't care about such things) do when they see that, think "yeah, that sounds cool" and implement it for their next campaign? Disaster. And WotC doesn't explain why you have to do more than add an extra few monsters to the fights.

For such a system to work, a lot of things need to be accounted for. The recovery rate of spell slots, character features tied to SR/LR. Magic items. Encounter building. Adventure design. Things that take more than two paragraphs to explain. And that is one example. What if I combine Epic Heroism with Spell Points? What are the perils of that?

So maybe it's better to take things that easily break the game and remove them for the core books. Put them in a supplement where they belong (be it an official or a 3pp one) where the ramifications can be spelled out in more than two paragraphs.

 

[Micah Sweet]

You're missing the point. The 2014 options worked because WE (the DMs) knew how to make them work. For example, there is an option to make short rests 5 minutes and long rests an hour. It's called epic heroism and it's given two whole paragraphs in the DMG. The only suggestion it gives is couched in "you may want to" and that's still "slow down spell slot recovery and consider using harder fights".

Now, you and I know that making rests that easy means PCs will chew through material much above their level, the encounter guidelines are useless, treasure needs to be reduced to compensate, and there is absolutely no way you can run any adventure as written. We know this because we are familiar with the general balance of D&D and 5e in particular. But what does a new DM (or one who doesn't dive into the metrics of the game, there are DMs who don't care about such things) do when they see that, think "yeah, that sounds cool" and implement it for their next campaign? Disaster. And WotC doesn't explain why you have to do more than add an extra few monsters to the fights.

For such a system to work, a lot of things need to be accounted for. The recovery rate of spell slots, character features tied to SR/LR. Magic items. Encounter building. Adventure design. Things that take more than two paragraphs to explain. And that is one example. What if I combine Epic Heroism with Spell Points? What are the perils of that?

So maybe it's better to take things that easily break the game and remove them for the core books. Put them in a supplement where they belong (be it an official or a 3pp one) where the ramifications can be spelled out in more than two paragraphs.

And therefore make it far less likely that incoming players even know other ways to play exist? How is that worth it?

 

[Remathilis]

And therefore make it far less likely that incoming players even know other ways to play exist? How is that worth it?

I'd rather that than for them to see a half-baked option in the DMG, think it's official and complete, and then destroy their game trying it without proper explanation of the consequences. I've already been told by @Umbran that WotC should not be the guide to alternate playstyles and 3pp products, so I'm going to say those players will have to find those rules the same way they would find Level Up.

 

[Micah Sweet]

I'd rather that than for them to see a half-baked option in the DMG, think it's official and complete, and then destroy their game trying it without proper explanation of the consequences. I've already been told by @Umbran that WotC should not be the guide to alternate playstyles and 3pp products, so I'm going to say those players will have to find those rules the same way they would find Level Up.

Strong disagree. More awareness of alternate rules and ways to play is always better. I don't agree with Umbran's take either. Neither WotC nor any 3pp should be the exclusive home of different play.

 

[Maxperson]

You're missing the point. The 2014 options worked because WE (the DMs) knew how to make them work. For example, there is an option to make short rests 5 minutes and long rests an hour. It's called epic heroism and it's given two whole paragraphs in the DMG. The only suggestion it gives is couched in "you may want to" and that's still "slow down spell slot recovery and consider using harder fights".

Now, you and I know that making rests that easy means PCs will chew through material much above their level, the encounter guidelines are useless, treasure needs to be reduced to compensate, and there is absolutely no way you can run any adventure as written. We know this because we are familiar with the general balance of D&D and 5e in particular. But what does a new DM (or one who doesn't dive into the metrics of the game, there are DMs who don't care about such things) do when they see that, think "yeah, that sounds cool" and implement it for their next campaign? Disaster. And WotC doesn't explain why you have to do more than add an extra few monsters to the fights.

A few things.

First, if you are new to the game and don't understand it yet, maybe don't use alternate rules that change how the game plays until you do understand them.

Second, "disaster"(in quotes because it isn't a disaster) just means that you correct for it later. Every new DM I've ever seen, myself included, has made disas...mistakes in running the game. We've corrected and moved on to a better run game.

It seems like people forget that learning curves are a thing and that they are an okay thing.

 

[Oofta]

And therefore make it far less likely that incoming players even know other ways to play exist? How is that worth it?

We live in an age of people that have grown up on the internet. People know to look for alternatives and how to find them.

 

[Micah Sweet]

We live in an age of people that have grown up on the internet. People know to look for alternatives and how to find them.

Not an excuse IMO to remove material people could use.