5.5E What do you want in the revised DMG?

[DND_Reborn]

I mean, I get what you are saying but let’s break it down a bit: Moving up to 30 feet, for a capable adventurer, might take what… somewhere between 1 to 3 seconds? Is that really important to simulate more granularly in a 6 second round combat system that is largely abstracted to begin with? I guess as an optional “combat movement” rule, some might latch onto it.

Since the first part of cinematic initiative is to understand the initiative rolls just indicate the order in the round, not necessarily any sort of timing factor. We don't like to force the concept that you can move so far on so many initiative counts, etc.

 

[Cadence]

It really makes it more boring. Think about baseball. When a player gets a hit it is exciting, something is happening, because generally hitting percentage is 25-35% (or maybe that is on-base... or the same thing? I am not a baseball fan so perhaps I am wrong?). But, if hitting becomes almost expected, it loses its appeal.

The baseball example makes me think about skill checks. There are sometimes where a d20+standard bonus makes sense for a skill check or contested roll - and others where it seems silly.

A decent in the neighborhood poker player will beat a world class one in a single hand of poker a reasonable percent of the because of the randomness. A high school basketball player might beat a pro once in a while in a game of horse. The chances of the decent local rec league player getting a hit off the Cy Young winner feel pretty small. A decent player on the local high school chess team could probably be spotted a piece by Carlsen and still effectively have no meaningful chance of not losing. Assuming the bonuses for the amateur/pro are the same in each case, I'd like book to have something on how to reflect that when calling for checks. (2d10 or 3d6 instead of d20 for some? Advantage for the better and disadvantage for the worse rated in some cases?).

 

[Swarmkeeper]

Since the first part of cinematic initiative is to understand the initiative rolls just indicate the order in the round, not necessarily any sort of timing factor. We don't like to force the concept that you can move so far on so many initiative counts, etc.

Possibly related question: can a PC split their move between initiatives? So, something like this: move 10’ on first “action” in initiative, attack on second, move 10’ on third, bonus action on 4th, last 10’ on final “action”.

 

[DND_Reborn]

Possibly related question: can a PC split their move between initiatives? So, something like this: move 10’ on first “action” in initiative, attack on second, move 10’ on third, bonus action on 4th, last 10’ on final “action”.

Yes, that is precisely it. Which is why I said:

4. Repeat until you run out of actions. (Movement--which can be broken up, Action, Bonus action).

Each time you move using any of your remaining speed, it is your Action for that initiative.

 

[DND_Reborn]

The baseball example makes me think about skill checks. There are sometimes where a d20+standard bonus makes sense for a skill check or contested roll - and others where it seems silly.

A decent in the neighborhood poker player will beat a world class one in a single hand of poker a reasonable percent of the because of the randomness. A high school basketball player might beat a pro once in a while in a game of horse. The chances of the decent local rec league player getting a hit off the Cy Young winner feel pretty small. A decent player on the local high school chess team could probably be spotted a piece by Carlsen and still effectively have no meaningful chance of not losing. Assuming the bonuses for the amateur/pro are the same in each case, I'd like book to have something on how to reflect that when calling for checks. (2d10 or 3d6 instead of d20 for some? Advantage for the better and disadvantage for the worse rated in some cases?).

On a related note: we have adopted using 2d10 instead of d20 for everything except initiative.

This makes having bonuses more important than the swingy luck of a d20.

 

[Swarmkeeper]

Yes, that is precisely it. Which is why I said:


Each time you move using any of your remaining speed, it is your Action for that initiative.

Ah yes. Now it is clear.

 

[Swarmkeeper]

It really makes it more boring. Think about baseball. When a player gets a hit it is exciting, something is happening, because generally hitting percentage is 25-35% (or maybe that is on-base... or the same thing? I am not a baseball fan so perhaps I am wrong?). But, if hitting becomes almost expected, it loses its appeal.

Of course, but now let's think about (American) football. A quarterback who only completes 25-35% of their passes will quickly lose their appeal and end up finding another job. Meanwhile, one hitting 65% of their passes has likely secured their starting position for years to come. So... yeah... to each their own.

 

[Cadence]

Of course, but now let's think about (American) football. A quarterback who only completes 25-35% of their passes will quickly lose their appeal and end up finding another job. Meanwhile, one hitting 65% of their passes has likely secured their starting position for years to come. So... yeah... to each their own.

The pitcher's success rate is 1- the batters'. Same for QB vs pass defense. So don't even need to switch sports, just which part of the team you root for most.

 

[DND_Reborn]

@Swarmkeeper and @Cadence

Sure, I know many people probably prefer hitting more, but for the reasons I expressed, it makes it boring. I don't like something that is easier, personally, and I don't need a feeling of "routine success" to make me feel good about my characters or playing the game.

 

[Blue]

What I really want in revised but still 5e books is plentiful sidebars from the designers discussing why they put in certain rules, the effects of changing them, and alternates that they looked at and why they didn't choose them. 13th Age, a d20 from lead designers of 4e and 3e, does a great job of this, including points where the two designers disagreed and why they picked the final rules. It makes it so much more friendly to hack, gives insight to players and DMs alike about what the rules are evoking, and gives you some knobs to tweak like 5e was originally promised to have.

 

[Lanefan]

I mean, I get what you are saying but let’s break it down a bit: Moving up to 30 feet, for a capable adventurer, might take what… somewhere between 1 to 3 seconds? Is that really important to simulate more granularly in a 6 second round combat system that is largely abstracted to begin with? I guess as an optional “combat movement” rule, some might latch onto it.

1 to 3 seconds in a 6-second round translates to 4-to-10 initiative pips out of 20, which when things could be happening on any of those pips, is a lot.

And if someone spends the entire round moving? Yes, knowing where that character is at any given time can be very important if other people are chucking A-of-E spells around and-or there's stray missile fire to contend with. Having the character be here until suddenly it's there instead is way too abstract for me.

 

[Lanefan]

I think the only thing I'd want is a revision to the adventuring day bit where it now gives multiple examples of adventuring days and makes it super ultra clear that there is no "right" way to do it. And if that doesn't drive a stake through the heart of the "6-8 encounters per day or you're Doing It Wrong" misconception that's so prevalent, put it on page one in big sparkly letters.

There would also need to be a section or write-up for DMs around resource depletion and how to wear a party down, if you scrap the 6-8 encounter model, as that's what the 6-to-8 model is (in theory) supposed to achieve.

 

[Lanefan]

On a related note: we have adopted using 2d10 instead of d20 for everything except initiative.

This makes having bonuses more important than the swingy luck of a d20.

And no fear of rolling that dreaded '1' any more, if the lowest possible is 2.

 

[DND_Reborn]

And no fear of rolling that dreaded '1' any more, if the lowest possible is 2.

Since you mention this, our baseline critical hit/fumble system actually relies on rolling doubles:

Critical Success. If you roll double 6's or higher and succeed, it is a critical success.
Critical Failure. If you roll double 5's or lower and fail, it is a critical failure.

It isn't quite the 1 in 20, but it works well.

FWIW, advantage and disadvantage cancel of course, but also stack. Each source adds 1d10, you always take the best or worst two dice depending on if you have net advantage or net disadvantage.

Just in case you're curious about it.

 

[jmartkdr2]

Points for being the one who comes out and says it.

Honestly the DMG should probably be replaced by something more useful within the core. The bests parts of various editions are Timeless and don't need updating.

The question should be what third book should the core have?

Personally I'd replace the DMG with a Manual of the Planes as the third core book.

I'd say a manual of non-monster stuff you'd find in dungeons is more important: traps, hazards, and of course magic items.

Then add more npcs to the Monster manual.

Between the three core books I should have no trouble send pcs into dungeons to fight dragons, with minimal improv beyond choosing what to use.

 

[guachi]

I want four sections: The Table, The Encounter, The Adventure, The Campaign.

The Table deals with effectively managing a table full of people. Different DMing styles, whatever.

The Encounter deals with building effective encounters in each of the three pillars. From revamping CR to effective ability check adjudication (especially in the Social and Exploration pillars).

The Adventure deals with coherent adventure building. Creating NPCs, exciting locations, enticing PC motivations.

The Campaign deals with stringing adventures together. Is it open-ended, is there a plot? How do you introduce new elements (planar travel, domains). It also would cover a myriad of alternate rules for different play styles.

If I'm a DM I'm almost certainly dealing with one of these four parts and I want a book to teach me how to be a better DM.

 

[guachi]

I also want Designer Notes. Real Designer Notes and not useless marginalia like in the X's Guide to Y we have now.

 

[ART!]

Points for being the one who comes out and says it.

Honestly the DMG should probably be replaced by something more useful within the core. The bests parts of various editions are Timeless and don't need updating.

The question should be what third book should the core have?

Personally I'd replace the DMG with a Manual of the Planes as the third core book.

Yeah, I think I'd be okay with the contents of a DMG distributed between the PHB, MM, and a Manual of the Planes. Having one book that provides a good look at the Shadowfell, the Feywild, the Abyss, etc - that would be pretty great, and an amazing tool for DMs.

 

[MNblockhead]

Regarding the discussion on designer notes, I think it would be interesting, but I'm not sure I would want much of that in the core books. I think that conent can be provided in other publications and venues for those interested in it. They should be more like "directors commentary" in movies. There for those who enjoy them but easily ignored by those who don't. To be fair, I've not really seen how this has been done in other systems, but I want my core rules concise, well organized, and cross referenced. I worry that adding designer notes would bloat the core books and detract from making the core mechanics easy to learn and reference.

 

[Mordhau]

Regarding the discussion on designer notes, I think it would be interesting, but I'm not sure I would want much of that in the core books. I think that conent can be provided in other publications and venues for those interested in it. They should be more like "directors commentary" in movies. There for those who enjoy them but easily ignored by those who don't. To be fair, I've not really seen how this has been done in other systems, but I want my core rules concise, well organized, and cross referenced. I worry that adding designer notes would bloat the core books and detract from making the core mechanics easy to learn and reference.

In 13th Age they're just small side bars. Including them may actually save space because you don't have to write so many rules to avoid ambiguity or ridiculous exploits based on legalistic application of rules text.

Here's an example.

And another in regard to application of a Ranger power Terrain stunt

Terrain stunt: At the start of each battle in a non-urban environment, roll a d6. Any time after the escalation die reaches that number, you’ll be able to use a quick action to execute a terrain stunt. Normally you can only use terrain stunt once per battle, but circumstances, geography, or excellent planning may suggest that you can pull it off more than once.

Terrain stunts are improvisational effects that play off your preternatural understanding of the wilderness and all the diverse forms of the natural world. Things like knocking a hornets nest no one had noticed onto your enemy’s head, maneuvering a foe onto a soggy patch of ground that slows them down, shooting the cap off a mushroom spore in a dungeon that erupts on your enemies, getting your enemy’s sword wedged into a stalactite, finding the tree branch that lets you vault up to attack the flying demon that thought it was out of axe range, and similar types of actions.