What do you want in the revised DMG?

[Mordhau]

To me that doesn't read as clear AND is also a terrible idea to make a classes " one unique thing" difficult to do!

Huh?

Sorry I have no idea what you're trying to say here.

 

[John R Davis]

Huh?

Sorry I have no idea what you're trying to say here.

The statement made on sneak attack chances!?

 

[Mannahnin]

Duplicate, disregard.

 

[AdmundfortGeographer]

In the way that Skycrawl and Downcrawl did “hexcrawl” systems for aerial and subterranean, I’d like the next DMG to have an abstracted structured option for hexcrawl exploration.

 

[Aldarc]

I'm starting to think that if we included everything people want (including me) the book might start to look like this:
View attachment 149038

I almost think that the contents of the DMG could be separated into two books: (1) a basic guide for running/modifiying the game and (2) world-building and such in the D&D multiverse. But "tradition" - whether it's a consistent one or not - demands three books.

 

[Mannahnin]

Yeah I remember reading 5e a lot of times and thinking "just tell us what you intend here"*. A lot of forum arguments about stealth might have been avoided if they'd just had a 13th Age style sidebar which told us something like "this is how we intend to use stealth, or perhaps more importantly, this is how difficult we intend it to be to get Sneak Attack, so in the case of the Rogue and hiding err on the side of being permissive".

To me that doesn't read as clear AND is also a terrible idea to make a classes " one unique thing" difficult to do!

To say "how difficult" the designers intended it to be for the Rogue (or anyone else) to hide* would clarify how to run Stealth, but doesn't imply that the intended baseline was actually "difficult". As Mordhau indicates above when they suggest that they could have explicitly TOLD DMs to err on the side of being permissive.

*(which isn't necessary for Sneak Attack, let's remember)

 

[TheSword]

The same stuff as the existing DMG.

Along with some pretty art and some new maps. Maybe a foreword from someone relevant.

It is an anniversary edition after all. You don’t celebrate your wedding anniversary by trading your parter out for a newer model!

 

[delericho]

Assuming the 2024 books are a slightly-revised 5e (and not a full-blown 6e), I'd stick with pretty much the same contents, but rewritten and reorganised for clarity. Oh, and a really good index covering all three books.

 

[Blue]

You are playing the wrong edition of the game. 5e is not 3e where monsters were designed to precision

You and I remember Budapest very differently.

There could be an vast difference between a stock foe and one with the same CR enhanced with character levels. Just like a high level single class PC would be a tiny fraction of the power of a well built, mutliclassed with PrCs PC of the same level, so even if your monster CRs were properly calibrated to each other there was no way to match those to party level.

 

[Lyxen]

You and I remember Budapest very differently.

There could be an vast difference between a stock foe and one with the same CR enhanced with character levels. Just like a high level single class PC would be a tiny fraction of the power of a well built, mutliclassed with PrCs PC of the same level, so even if your monster CRs were properly calibrated to each other there was no way to match those to party level.

And still, it worked fairly well even adding some character levels to monsters. Sometimes yes, you had things that synergised really well and needed to adjust a bit, sometimes the synergy was really poor and you had to adjust the other way, but the tools where there and worked not too badly. Not as precisely as in 4e, but way more precisely than in 5e.