D&D (2024) D&D Dungeon Master’s Guide (2024)

[Nikosandros]

That saddens me. I plan to introduce some newbies to D&D, and it sure would be nice to have a Starter Set to go along with the new PHB & DMG.

Yes, it is a bit counter-intuitive to me that a starter set will come out one year after the game is out.

 

[Whizbang Dustyboots]

That saddens me. I plan to introduce some newbies to D&D, and it sure would be nice to have a Starter Set to go along with the new PHB & DMG.

At the very least, it should come out before the dragon anthology. Such a weird choice.

 

[Nikosandros]

Diseases have hardly been used in any effective way in 5e. I think they just decided that the concept of being "ill" is modelled by Exhaustion, and/or the Poisoned condition, and that's enough - there probably doesn't really need to be a separate mechanic for Disease.

We'll see, but I suspect that is their thinking on it.

I remember reading the AD&D rules in the DMG about diseases with morbid fascination. But how often did I use them? I think probably never...

 

[FitzTheRuke]

That saddens me. I plan to introduce some newbies to D&D, and it sure would be nice to have a Starter Set to go along with the new PHB & DMG.

I agree, but at least the next Starter Set sounds like it could be quite interesting. I was a bit disappointed with the last one, content-wise. In particular when compared to the first 5e one, which knocked it out of the park.

 

[FitzTheRuke]

At the very least, it should come out before the dragon anthology. Such a weird choice.

I'd guess that they feel that the last one wasn't long enough ago (and they don't care about the rules matching up quite as much as the rest of us do) to justify pushing it to the fore. I don't think that they're entirely right about that, but... it's up to them.

The Dragon Anthology is an excellent idea for a D&D book, but it's not really urgent, you're right.

 

[Parmandur]

Yes, it is a bit counter-intuitive to me that a starter set will come out one year after the game is out.

The release date for the Starter Set seems to be based on the school year starting, and setting up new players to refer to the complete core already in place.

 

[FitzTheRuke]

I remember reading the AD&D rules in the DMG about diseases with morbid fascination. But how often did I use them? I think probably never...

Agreed. It stuck around for as long as it has for Legacy, I think, more than because it was ever all that useful. Who wants to play a character that's slowly dying, or sick all the time? And if you're just going to cast a "Restoration" spell, why bother? And again, where it's narratively useful (bites from vermin or falling in sewer water, or for exposure to extreme climates or that sort of thing) then I think using Exhaustion and Poisoned probably do the trick.

 

[I'm A Banana]

Diseases have hardly been used in any effective way in 5e. I think they just decided that the concept of being "ill" is modelled by Exhaustion, and/or the Poisoned condition, and that's enough - there probably doesn't really need to be a separate mechanic for Disease.

We'll see, but I suspect that is their thinking on it.

D&D has never really had a great use of disease.

The mechanical role of disease is as a way to inflict a condition that robs characters of the option of rest (rests don't restore you, they make you worse), and drain your resources over long periods of time (so, when between adventures, or while travelling over land for many days).

But, a lot of D&D diseases get forgotten about because they don't directly impact the fight or the dungeon crawl the party is currently having. Diseases can last between sessions (because they impact between adventures), and so get lost. And it's relatively easy to remove them for a well-prepared party (a paladin or a cleric does fine).

There's space, though. My group had a run-in with mummy rot that's still ongoing. Kind of the exception that proves the rule, though.

Makes me want to make a DMs Guild supplement for diseases that can actually be used in play and impact the party.

 

[Charlaquin]

D&D has never really had a great use of disease.

The mechanical role of disease is as a way to inflict a condition that robs characters of the option of rest (rests don't restore you, they make you worse), and drain your resources over long periods of time (so, when between adventures, or while travelling over land for many days).

But, a lot of D&D diseases get forgotten about because they don't directly impact the fight or the dungeon crawl the party is currently having. Diseases can last between sessions (because they impact between adventures), and so get lost. And it's relatively easy to remove them for a well-prepared party (a paladin or a cleric does fine).

There's space, though. My group had a run-in with mummy rot that's still ongoing. Kind of the exception that proves the rule, though.

Makes me want to make a DMs Guild supplement for diseases that can actually be used in play and impact the party.

They felt pretty vestigial in 5e. Like they only existed to justify Paladins being immune to them and being able to cure them with Lay on Hands. Which in turn made those Paladin features feel like they only mattered when the DM decided to humor you.

 

[tetrasodium]

So I noticed that the new PHB has removed any references to diseases or its effects (lesser and greater restoration. do not even make mention of curing. diseases).

Is that because diseases and. its effects will be in the DMG?

In addition to what @FitzTheRuke wrote, not having player facing "lol no" options to immune or trivially dismiss disease allows it to be used with "oh crap " weight without needing to bake in all kinds of loopholes for why this disease is special.