D&D 5E (2024) Do You Prefer D&D 5.5E/2024 to D&D 5E/2014?

[FitzTheRuke]

So, there are decades of bottled up trauma…

Oh, probably!

 

[abazaba]

Its an art not science

Perhaps. I could argue that building the encounter (how many monsters and of what type) is roughly based on math/science, but then knowing how to actually play/enact the encounter (how to engage the pc's, or which pc's, fudge die rolls or not, etc.) could be an art.

 

[Zardnaar]

Perhaps. I could argue that building the encounter (how many monsters and of what type) is roughly based on math/science, but then knowing how to actually play/enact the encounter (how to engage the pc's, or which pc's, fudge die rolls or not, etc.) could be an art.

Not even that due to monster variables and combos.

Current 5.5 rules are decent.

 

[Tigris]

I am claiming no such thing. You may be, but I'm not.

I am claiming that no DMG outside of an actual Basic Set Dm's book has been aimed at the complete novice. They have always assumed some level of understanding of what the game is and how it is played (mostly because traditionally players turned into DMs). The DMGs are referenced for the DM, and therefore have the information the DM needs. They discuss how to DM, for sure, but not as a guide to the completely uninitiated.

But really, how would we know, since no one ever read the DMG?

Have you seen the 4th edition DMG? That was clearly aimed at newcommers and did explain everything, and because of that its still most likely the best DMG out there. Way better than the 5E was.

 

[abazaba]

Have you seen the 4th edition DMG? That was clearly aimed at newcommers and did explain everything, and because of that its still most likely the best DMG out there. Way better than the 5E was.

If I understand correctly, the WotC design team explicitly looked to the 4e DMG as an inspiration/example on how to design the 5.5e DMG, for that very reason.

 

[Minigiant]

Encounter building. Fincounter Shuilding.

5.0e monsters were created with roles in mind but WOTC didnt tell you what they were.

So in 5.0e, you had to read everymonster carefully to figure out if it was a Skirmisher, Brute, Archer, Soldier, Tank, Blaster, Controller, etc.

In 5.5e, 75% of monsters were the same role. Decent melee, range, and defenses. Some had gimmicks.

One was unpredictable unless you did work.
One was predictable unless you did work.

Made for 2 different tents of DM camps.

 

[Zardnaar]

Have you seen the 4th edition DMG? That was clearly aimed at newcommers and did explain everything, and because of that its still most likely the best DMG out there. Way better than the 5E was.

Any DMG should be signed at newcomers imho. 5.0 wasn't great dmg.

My 1st dmg I resad was 1E. First one I used rules cyclopedia then 2E.

5.0 a.d 1E were meh ones.

 

[abazaba]

Any DMG should be signed at newcomers imho. 5.0 wasn't great dmg.

I got the impression that the 5e DMG actually had some good content, but it was laid out in a really bad fashion. It literally starts out with "Let's build a World and a Multiverse !". That could be good content, but you may not want to intimidate (new) DM's with the impression that you need to create a whole new world and multiverse, before you can run a single adventure.

 

[Tigris]

Any DMG should be signed at newcomers imho. 5.0 wasn't great dmg.

My 1st dmg I resad was 1E. First one I used rules cyclopedia then 2E.

5.0 a.d 1E were meh ones.

I agree fully (ok 1E I dont know thats too old to ever look at).

DMG should be made for newcommers, and 5E one is really bad, especially after 3.5 and 4E both had way better ones.

 

[Zardnaar]

I agree fully (ok 1E I dont know thats too old to ever look at).

DMG should be made for newcommers, and 5E one is really bad, especially after 3.5 and 4E both had way better ones.

Has a look at 3.5 dmg recently. Its not to bad. 2E one is decent as well along with 4E. Do they recall 3.0 atm.