D&D 5E DMG release date pushed back

[thalmin]

I get the impression that they've been working on the books one-at-a-time due to the small team size. So they probably had an outline of things they wanted to put in it, and some half-tested rules modules, but they haven't been able to dig their teeth into it until the MM went off to the printers.

I suspect they discovered they needed more time to make all the rules options jive together.

We were still providing DMG playtest feedback in mid-August.

 

[Thank Dog]

Judging by the number of errors in the Player's Handbook, I think this is a good move.

Errors? Like?

A lot of the "errors" that I've seen people point out are not actual errors but rather things that a person simply doesn't like and so they call them errors in order to facilitate their rage.

For sure, I am just wondering why it isn't already at the appropriate level of quality...it's the last one to go. Is this a sign that some unforseen issue has popped up since late August and they need to re-write sections/add new ones?

Mike answered this question in the article...

 

[MonsterEnvy]

Errors? Like?

A lot of the "errors" that I've seen people point out are not actual errors but rather things that a person simply doesn't like and so they call them errors in order to facilitate their rage.

There are a couple of errors. But they tend to be very minor. So Minor I can't remember any off the top of my head.

 

[Bugleyman]

Errors? Like?

I can only assume much of the halfling art was an error. ;-)

Seriously, I can only think of one off the top of my head: Arcane Recovery was supposed to include (rounded up). Otherwise it does nothing at 1st level.

I'm generally very pleased with the quality of the PHB content. If I were to pick nits about the PHB, I wish for the price they would have included (or even charged $10 extra for) a fully-sewn binding.

 

[Andor]

I, for one, welcome our new modron overlords.

Seems like great news to me. If you go back several years you can find posts from me on this board pointing out that the design process was still obviously too much in flux and they would be better off pushing back dates than in rushing a halfbaked product to market. Turns out I was right, sadly. I'm glad they are finally taking my advice, one edition too late. :/

 

[Thank Dog]

I, for one, welcome our new modron overlords.

Those modrons look very disorganised. Their formations are haphazard. I advocate that they be rebuilt! All in favour?

 

[variant]

I hope they use this opportunity to give us an alternative Ranger without spell casting.

 

[Giltonio_Santos]

I've always been dubious about, "It's done when it's done." Oughtn't it be, "It's done when it's good?"

The problem with good is that it will always be a subjective analysis. I want my games to be released when all of the design goals are achieved, hence, when it's done. In the specific case of Blizzard, there was a time when every game that they took the time to properly develop would be good, in my subjective analysis. WotC, to be honest, never got so far...

 

[Mark CMG]

We were still providing DMG playtest feedback in mid-August.

And they are now getting an Internet-full of posts/blogs about people's reactions to the Basic PDF and Starter Set (as well as the PHB and MM), many of whom had nothing to do with the playtest; many fresh eyes are upon the system. Mike Mearls is getting a ton of new feedback from folks who weren't so close to the material before.

 

[Mercule]

More than any book, the DMG will determine if my group fully embraces 5E (without the rule modules, the game thus far feels incomplete to me). So I am disappointed by this news, but I would rather have a better books a few weeks later.

Agreed. 5E has been good enough that I sold off my 3.5 stuff. Whether or not I stay enthused, long term, or 5E takes 3.5's place on my shelf as "if someone is running a game, at least I've got some books" will require the full set of rules, especially DM support.

Worth noting: I'm pretty confident it'll be good.