Leaks from the DMG

[obryn]

Yes, really. In case you're wondering what kinds of switches and toggles we may see. (I have no details, just the list.)


highlights:
costs to construct building
costs for hirelings
downtime activites (most of which have a 20% chance of going to jail for 5d6 days)
domains (kingdom builder rules)
using miniatures!!!
travel hazards
diseases
poisons
madness
traps
puzzles
modifying races
creating new races
monsters as characters
modifying classes

optional rules:
training to level up
trading in magic items
flanking
attacking cover
morale
action points
called shots
alternate skill systems (13th age backgrounds are an option)
vitality
spell points
skill points
single strike (1 attack roll, cumulative damage)
second wind
rest variants
proficiency dice
massive damage
marking
facing
cleaving through the horde
automatic success
chases
cantrip slots
action points (again?)
group initiative
weapon speed
passive initiative
gestalt characters

[Shining Wrath]

Looks like a solid list. Madness a new topic for core; that would enable some Lovecraftian goodness.

[Human Paragon 3]

Wow, it's practically an unearthed arcana.

[obryn]

Wow, it's practically an unearthed arcana.
That's how they've been talking about it, and it looks like a fair assessment.

[Yorrin]

gestalt characters

....

Wow. On the one hand I'm ecstatic, because I love big complex awesome powerful characters. On the other hand this goes completely against the design goals of simplicity. Sadly this will never see use at my table (aside from the occasional powerful NPC), but I'm sure this will drain away a good portion of my free time as I try out all sorts of crazy class combinations.

[pwykersotz]

Hahaha, oh man, group initiative?

It's hilarious to me, because literally ten minutes before posting this I was talking with one of my friends about the possibility of introducing group initiative to speed along combat and encourage group tactics. In my opinion, nothing slows down game more than "Now it's your turn. Now it's your turn. Now it's your turn."

That's fantastic, I hope it ends up being something I will consider usable. :smallbiggrin:

Edit: Aww yes! And called shots too! My anticipation just shot through the roof!

[obryn]

Also, as forecasted, "proficiency dice" make a comeback. Good work, whoever noticed that +2 to +6 match nicely with d4 through d12!

[Tholomyes]

Looks like a solid list. Madness a new topic for core; that would enable some Lovecraftian goodness.Looks good enough, though I was hoping they'd go One Step Beyond, but I don't think that the rules will be an Embarrassment for WotC, when I break them out at Our House.

(Yes that was bad. No I do not apologize)

In a serious note, some of the things listed here interest me, though it all comes down to how much depth they give. For example, modifying classes and races could be cool, though if they don't give any reasonable depth to it, it could easily be useless. And there are other things which confuse me as to why they're there, as opposed to something like Action Economy, which has more that can be made from it.

As for a couple specifics, I'm actually a little bit concerned about the addition of Marking as an optional rule, mostly because I don't think Mearls ever really got the concept. And since 5e appears to already have taken aspects of marking and made them feats or Battlemaster maneuvers and such, I'm not sure how they could add it, without treading on existing mechanics. Additionally I'm wary of their handling of monsters as characters. I certainly hope this isn't a return to Level Adjustment races, because, since it's not among the "optional Rules" it'd be easy for them to say later, that they're making LA standard for certain new races.

[HorridElemental]

Yes, really. In case you're wondering what kinds of switches and toggles we may see. (I have no details, just the list.)

Yeah I just might drop 50 for the DMG, I don't think I've ever bought a DMG before... My 2e DMG was given to me and other ones were always borrowed...

Spell points is going to be interesting, might that be the test for Psion/Wilder?

[some guy]

That looks very nice. I have to say I started out as "Looks nice but I'm not going to switch." to "Hm, it's a pity switching systems is such a pain." to "Oh, dang, I'm afraid I have to switch.". Lot's of good things.

[Totema]

I'm glad they're elaborating on rules for using miniatures; I don't think I'm ready for the "theater of the mind" style of combat yet.

[obryn]

I'm glad they're elaborating on rules for using miniatures; I don't think I'm ready for the "theater of the mind" style of combat yet.
The good news is that 5e already assumes miniatures - just potentially-imaginary ones rather than definitely-physical ones. :smallsmile:

[Tholomyes]

I'm glad they're elaborating on rules for using miniatures; I don't think I'm ready for the "theater of the mind" style of combat yet.Personally, I wish D&D would allow for actual TotM. The closest I've ever seen them get to it "Imaginary Battlemap." The issue with running TotM in D&D isn't that TotM is difficult, but rather that everything is described in feet and areas, where TotM works a ton better when you describe it as rough estimates of distances (i.e. adjacent, near enough to move to in one round, and far) and where areas are instead described in terms of number of nearby allies or enemies (i.e. 1d4+1 enemies in a group that is within movement range or 4 allies within movement range). As much as I dislike the 13th age, in terms of how much it enforces flavor in various areas, and how much stuff that should be player choice is dictated by random chance (i.e. you may only use this ability if you roll a natural odd on your attack roll, ect), it is very good at TotM.

[Knaight]

That's a pretty substantial list. I like it.

[Totema]

Personally, I wish D&D would allow for actual TotM. The closest I've ever seen them get to it "Imaginary Battlemap." The issue with running TotM in D&D isn't that TotM is difficult, but rather that everything is described in feet and areas, where TotM works a ton better when you describe it as rough estimates of distances (i.e. adjacent, near enough to move to in one round, and far) and where areas are instead described in terms of number of nearby allies or enemies (i.e. 1d4+1 enemies in a group that is within movement range or 4 allies within movement range). As much as I dislike the 13th age, in terms of how much it enforces flavor in various areas, and how much stuff that should be player choice is dictated by random chance (i.e. you may only use this ability if you roll a natural odd on your attack roll, ect), it is very good at TotM.

I'm just not good at keeping track of spacial relationships purely in my head, I think. :(

[archaeo]

Is this just from the EN World thread/your own accounting of Mearls' pearls of wisdom? (Mearls' Pearls is a terrible band name.) Or is there another source?

[obryn]

Is this just from the EN World thread/your own accounting of Mearls' pearls of wisdom? (Mearls' Pearls is a terrible band name.) Or is there another source?
Another source.

This same poster had the Alpha PHB before it was in the wild, and has proven credible with that.

[TripleD]

The issue with running TotM in D&D isn't that TotM is difficult, but rather that everything is described in feet and areas, where TotM works a ton better when you describe it as rough estimates of distances

This is a completely subjective, personal experience rebuttal, but I actually find TOM works better when things are described in feet and areas. Or I should say, I like a hybrid part-miniatures/part-TOM setup. Having things like miniatures on a grid is nothing but a pain in the ass for mounted combat, far shots, and anything that involves distances that are relevant to some characters (archers, mounted characters, etc.) but irrelevant to others (rogues, spellcasters, etc.). That and, since players don't have to remember where they are, they pay less attention during other player's turns. With that being said, having things in feet and area makes it a lot easier to justify "you can do that", or "you can't accomplish this" to my player, as I keep a rough approximation on paper of their positions. Granted, I do try to flavor the math a lot.

e.g. "A ball of fire seven halflings 'round engulfs three of the bandits".

As I said though, this is just what works for me.

[Freelance GM]

I'm not sure what Cleaving Through the Horde is (4E minion rules?)... But I really like the way it sounds.

[CockroachTeaParty]

If the group initiative rules are decent, it would be a godsend for play-by-post/email games.

I'm also intrigued by proficiency dice, if only because I like rolling more dice! Probably would slow things down a bit, though...

[Natael]

Not sure what this group initiative thing will be, but I love the idea of passive initiative instead of rolling for it, especially in an Adventures League type setting where you can be under a bit of a time crunch.

[Galen]

downtime activites (most of which have a 20% chance of going to jail for 5d6 days)
I ... want ... this ... book

[Hytheter]

costs to construct building
downtime activites (most of which have a 20% chance of going to jail for 5d6 days)

Finally I can fulfill me dream of using DnD to emulate Monopoly!

[Slipperychicken]

I really hope they get morale right. That's been a big complaint of mine regarding verisimilitude in D&D.


Finally I can fulfill me dream of using DnD to emulate Monopoly!

I'll hold out until I see the race-builder. If it lets me make a good shoe race, we're golden.

[Sartharina]

I'll hold out until I see the race-builder. If it lets me make a good shoe race, we're golden.Thimble's better.

[Doomchild]

Maybe I'm a weirdo, but I'm most excited about weapon speeds (though it can easily be done wrong).

[Vizzerdrix]

monsters as characters?!

Yes please!

[SiuiS]

....

Wow. On the one hand I'm ecstatic, because I love big complex awesome powerful characters. On the other hand this goes completely against the design goals of simplicity. Sadly this will never see use at my table (aside from the occasional powerful NPC), but I'm sure this will drain away a good portion of my free time as I try out all sorts of crazy class combinations.

I thought their goal was modularity with simplicity being the baseline. If so, this qualifies.

[Mandrake]

This all sounds awesome and I believe they will make most of it right (I'm optimistic like that). Also, it doesn't look to me as if it would be a pain implementing them: they will probably follow simple rules as they did thus far, and, also, rules are so simple right now that adding in won't hurt experienced players much.

The only thing that worries me is what will of all of these coolness actually be allowed for use in official games (adventurer's league). Do you think they will let the DM do it?

[Gurka]

I'm not sure what Cleaving Through the Horde is (4E minion rules?)... But I really like the way it sounds.

I don't know for certain, but my speculation would be rules for condensing battlefield combat or epic combat (vs dozens or hundreds of opponents) into a few rolls rather that 7 hours of dice rolls.

[Joe the Rat]

The only thing that worries me is what will of all of these coolness actually be allowed for use in official games (adventurer's league). Do you think they will let the DM do it?

All of it, no. Any of it... I suspect a few items may be opened up for AL play, though it is more likely that specific options will instead be baked into AL documentation. Selling magic items, for example. Any other options will need to be relatively build-neutral. A character built with Bog Standard in mind shouldn't be significantly gimped or boosted by the use of facing and flanking, or skill dice (You like rolling more dice? Hello Expertise!).

[Calmar]

I'm soo glad all those additional rules (both the good ones and those I find uninteresting) are labeled as optional. It really emphasized that this material is a toolbox for DMs to chose from. :)

[Slipperychicken]

I'm soo glad all those additional rules (both the good ones and those I find uninteresting) are labeled as optional. It really emphasized that this material is a toolbox for DMs to chose from. :)

There were a number of rules in 3.x labeled as "optional" or "variant" rules, but so many gamers felt entitled to them that they were essentially considered to be part of the default ruleset. Some notable examples include prestige classes, custom magic items, the Far Realm plane, and wealth-by-level.

One can already see in the same thing in 5e with feats, multiclassing, and the variant-human race.

[Cibulan]

There were a number of rules in 3.x labeled as "optional" or "variant" rules, but so many gamers felt entitled to them that they were essentially considered to be part of the default ruleset. Some notable examples include prestige classes, custom magic items, the Far Realm plane, and wealth-by-level.

One can already see in the same thing in 5e with feats, multiclassing, and the variant-human race. Yep. I read these forums and see it taken for granted but in my current game I don't allow variant human or multiclassing.

[Doomchild]

There were a number of rules in 3.x labeled as "optional" or "variant" rules, but so many gamers felt entitled to them that they were essentially considered to be part of the default ruleset. Some notable examples include prestige classes, custom magic items, the Far Realm plane, and wealth-by-level.

One can already see in the same thing in 5e with feats, multiclassing, and the variant-human race.

I'm definitely worried about "trading in magic items." Hopefully players don't become obsessed with this being necessary to their character concepts.

[odigity]

Maybe I'm a weirdo, but I'm most excited about weapon speeds...

Maybe, but that's ok.

[Aron Times]

I'm definitely worried about "trading in magic items." Hopefully players don't become obsessed with this being necessary to their character concepts.
I interpreted this as being able to barter magic items with NPCs instead of Magic WalMart. Magic items don't dull or rust or tarnish or otherwise degrade over time, and it would be a waste to have them just sold as ordinary goods with a shelf life. I figure that permanent magic items would be passed down through the generations instead of being sold at WalMart.

Edit: Regarding weapon speeds, I suspect they will do it the way nWoD 2.0 does it, though Initiative penalties for heavier weapons. IIRC, using a normal-sized handgun doesn't give you a penalty, but wielding something massive like a .356 .44 magnum imposes a -2 penalty to Initiative.

[Slipperychicken]

I interpreted this as being able to barter magic items with NPCs instead of Magic WalMart. Magic items don't dull or rust or tarnish or otherwise degrade over time, and it would be a waste to have them just sold as ordinary goods with a shelf life. I figure that permanent magic items would be passed down through the generations instead of being sold at WalMart.

I think the trading rules will look more like "A magic item can generally be exchanged for goods, services, and money whose sum equals to the corresponding value on the table below".


Also, I don't think trading magic items is such a bad thing. Any good which can be exchanged has a value dictated by market forces; it's the price which the highest bidder is willing to pay. Even the most rare, special, and precious artifact can be bought and sold for money (and indeed these properties only serve to increase their value). Why would magic items be exempt from this principle?

[Knaight]

Also, I don't think trading magic items is such a bad thing. Any good which can be exchanged has a value dictated by market forces; it's the price which the highest bidder is willing to pay. Even the most rare, special, and precious artifact can be bought and sold for money (and indeed these properties only serve to increase their value). Why would magic items be exempt from this principle?

Exactly - sans some quibbling on the exact value. Unique paintings by long dead masters are bought and sold, and those are way more priceless than some magic sword of which there are other similar ones. Magic items often aren't even all that useful by the mechanics, and while they likely carry setting weight there's a lot that makes sense in trade. Plenty of people who acquire a magic sword could stand to gain for trading it in for a small private army, plenty of people with enough troops to spare small private armies could stand to gain from the sword as a symbol. Markets magically vanishing where magic items are concerned just seems weird.

[MadGrady]

Yep. I read these forums and see it taken for granted but in my current game I don't allow variant human or multiclassing.

Why no multiclassing may I ask?

[Aron Times]

I like the idea of magic items having high cultural value. In the real world, the original Star Spangled Banner is a priceless artifact due to its importance in US history, despite being a simple, tattered, patchwork rag. Now imagine a magic flag or weapon or other such cultural item that is immune to the ravages of time and provides a measurable magical effect. In this case, most cultural heirlooms would survive the fall of their civilizations up to the end of time itself!

[MadGrady]

I like the idea of magic items having high cultural value. In the real world, the original Star Spangled Banner is a priceless artifact due to its importance in US history, despite being a simple, tattered, patchwork rag. Now imagine a magic flag or weapon or other such cultural item that is immune to the ravages of time and provides a measurable magical effect. In this case, most cultural heirlooms would survive the fall of their civilizations up to the end of time itself!

Sounds more like an epic quest to obtain said artifact vs finding it on the shelf in your local FantasyMart.

I agree though, I like this idea better as well.

[Cibulan]

Why no multiclassing may I ask? I'm not really a fan of it conceptually but game wise I have some players that are used to AD&D and they are only very slowly coming into the modern gaming. Their concept of multiclassing is totally different and I don't want to have to sort out that a 5 wiz/5 clr doesn't cast 5th level spells in both classes, as an example.

So tldr, I don't like it conceptually and mechanically it would confuse my players.

[Yagyujubei]

that list is boner inducing...dmg cant be out quick enough

[MustacheFart]

Need more bullywug!

[mephnick]

Why no multiclassing may I ask?

In my opinion it rarely makes sense from a role-playing point of view.

Would the kind of person dedicated enough to become a cleric or champion of a god really one day just be like "...nah, I'm a warlock now"

Like a barbarian whose tribe is conquered by a new society and becomes a fighter for an army? Yeah, I can buy that maybe.

Most multi-classing I see (especially here) has no relevance to story and is objectively meta-gaming.

[Doomchild]

Exactly - sans some quibbling on the exact value. Unique paintings by long dead masters are bought and sold, and those are way more priceless than some magic sword of which there are other similar ones.

Really? A non-magical painting is more priceless than a MAGICAL sword, handcrafted by a long dead master, imbued with magic through a process we don't even understand yet? You're sure about that?

I mean, sure, if your world is populated by dozens of vanilla +1 swords, they might ONLY be worth as much as a valyrian steel sword (which is so much that the richest noble in Westeros has not been able to buy one despite years of trying). But I thought magic items in 5e were supposed to be rare and unique things with significant backstories.

[archaeo]

In my opinion it rarely makes sense from a role-playing point of view.

Would the kind of person dedicated enough to become a cleric or champion of a god really one day just be like "...nah, I'm a warlock now"

Like a barbarian whose tribe is conquered by a new society and becomes a fighter for an army? Yeah, I can buy that maybe.

Most multi-classing I see (especially here) has no relevance to story and is objectively meta-gaming.

Well, part of the multiclassing discussion should happen at character creation, if there's going to be a "build." Certainly, I wouldn't let a player just multiclass on a whim; it should be an important part of the character's arc, a linchpin in their development. But, even if it is "objectively meta-gaming," it's a long and storied part of D&D, and letting players participate in that with the new edition is a good idea.

[mephnick]

Yeah, I still let it take place, of course. If it makes sense.

The cleric4/paladin3/badass5/snowflake6 stuff you see on here would never fly though.

[Soular]

Edit: Regarding weapon speeds, I suspect they will do it the way nWoD 2.0 does it, though Initiative penalties for heavier weapons. IIRC, using a normal-sized handgun doesn't give you a penalty, but wielding something massive like a .356 magnum imposes a -2 penalty to Initiative.

Since when is a .357 not a "normal sized handgun?"


I like the idea of magic items having high cultural value. In the real world, the original Star Spangled Banner is a priceless artifact due to its importance in US history, despite being a simple, tattered, patchwork rag. Now imagine a magic flag or weapon or other such cultural item that is immune to the ravages of time and provides a measurable magical effect. In this case, most cultural heirlooms would survive the fall of their civilizations up to the end of time itself!

Agreed. And I think 5E supports this idea. I have a +1 longsword and breastplate from the Phandelver adventure, and they both have storied histories behind them. That's a far cry from the old days of +1 items of genericness.


In my opinion it rarely makes sense from a role-playing point of view.

Would the kind of person dedicated enough to become a cleric or champion of a god really one day just be like "...nah, I'm a warlock now"

Like a barbarian whose tribe is conquered by a new society and becomes a fighter for an army? Yeah, I can buy that maybe.

Most multi-classing I see (especially here) has no relevance to story and is objectively meta-gaming.

My experience has been the same. I generally frown on multi-classing at my table, unless the player has a truly well reasoned need for it to achieve his character concept.


Really? A non-magical painting is more priceless than a MAGICAL sword, handcrafted by a long dead master, imbued with magic through a process we don't even understand yet? You're sure about that?

I mean, sure, if your world is populated by dozens of vanilla +1 swords, they might ONLY be worth as much as a valyrian steel sword (which is so much that the richest noble in Westeros has not been able to buy one despite years of trying). But I thought magic items in 5e were supposed to be rare and unique things with significant backstories.

Not ANY non-magical painting, for sure. But it is entirely conceivable that a painting by a very notable artist could, depending on rarity, be worth as much, if not more than, some low-level magic items.

For instance: A Total Eclipse of the Soul is a tattered, moth-bitten tapestry made by Oliviana, the wicked ruler of the long lost kingdom of Xanadookie. In the course of attaining lichedom, she peered into the very depths of hell and went mad, and felt compelled to create the tapestry with the waning remnants of her sanity. The tapestry depicts her fevered visions of that plane in such stark detail that anyone looking intently at the tapestry must make a WIS check or be struck by fear.

The item need not be magical, just unique and highly sought after. This tapestry hanging in someone's library is far more valuable than any +1 sword would be. Particularly if the owner already had a +2 sword.

[Sartharina]

In my opinion it rarely makes sense from a role-playing point of view.

Would the kind of person dedicated enough to become a cleric or champion of a god really one day just be like "...nah, I'm a warlock now"I'd imagine a Cleric/Warlock would be like someone who worships, say, both an Evil God and a Demon Prince. Or a Nature God and a Fey Prince. Or both a Far Realms God (Such as Azathoth) and drawing additional powers from his High Priest (Such as Cthulhu). Or, on a more benevolent side, a worshiper of a Good God such as Pelor, and drawing additional power from Talisid and his companions.

[mephnick]

Would someone who devotes their life to personify a god, so much so that said god grants them magical powers, really casually go worshipping other gods?

I feel like becoming a cleric or paladin would be a life long decision, or you wouldn't have been the kind of person to become a cleric or paladin in the first place.

[Rfkannen]

Would someone who devotes their life to personify a god, so much so that said god grants them magical powers, really casually go worshipping other gods?

I feel like becoming a cleric or paladin would be a life long decision, or you wouldn't have been the kind of person to become a cleric or paladin in the first place.


Personally I have cleric/warlocks fairly common because demigods have warlocks not clerics. And most demigods serve an actual god. But for the most part I agree in most settings, although I could see it working the opposite way, a powerfull magic user that eventualy submits to the will of a diety, thereby multiclassing as a cleric.

[Aron Times]

Since when is a .357 not a "normal sized handgun?"

Sorry, that was a typo. I was thinking of a .44 caliber revolver (specifically the Colt Anaconda from Vampire: Bloodlines) and somehow typed .356. Derp.

[mephnick]

I could see it working the opposite way, a powerfull magic user that eventualy submits to the will of a diety, thereby multiclassing as a cleric.

That's a pretty good point, yeah.

[Rummy]

I am also stoked about weapon speeds. That is a blast from the past for me.

[Rfkannen]

I am also stoked about weapon speeds. That is a blast from the past for me.


So what exactly are those?

[Galen]

So what exactly are those?

A modifier to your initiative based on the weapon you're using. I actually disliked them back in 2E, too much number crunching for too little payoff, and we avoided using them.

[Slipperychicken]

Really? A non-magical painting is more priceless than a MAGICAL sword, handcrafted by a long dead master, imbued with magic through a process we don't even understand yet? You're sure about that?


Value only depends on what people are willing to pay for it. So yeah, that could totally happen, especially if the painting is famous.


Besides, magic isn't that special in D&D. A good chunk of people, and a lot of monsters can do magic. You can walk into town and pick up potions which instantly heal your wounds (they aren't even hard to make; it just takes a while). Every temple and every two-bit cult has at least one guy who will throw magic at you, and they probably won't even charge for it.

[Rummy]

A modifier to your initiative based on the weapon you're using. I actually disliked them back in 2E, too much number crunching for too little payoff, and we avoided using them.

But it really scratched my simulationist itch that daggers acted faster than war hammers or Polearms. Also, initiative was calculated each round, IIRC. It meant more.

[Doomchild]

Not ANY non-magical painting, for sure. But it is entirely conceivable that a painting by a very notable artist could, depending on rarity, be worth as much, if not more than, some low-level magic items.

For instance: A Total Eclipse of the Soul is a tattered, moth-bitten tapestry made by Oliviana, the wicked ruler of the long lost kingdom of Xanadookie. In the course of attaining lichedom, she peered into the very depths of hell and went mad, and felt compelled to create the tapestry with the waning remnants of her sanity. The tapestry depicts her fevered visions of that plane in such stark detail that anyone looking intently at the tapestry must make a WIS check or be struck by fear.

The item need not be magical, just unique and highly sought after. This tapestry hanging in someone's library is far more valuable than any +1 sword would be. Particularly if the owner already had a +2 sword.


Value only depends on what people are willing to pay for it. So yeah, that could totally happen, especially if the painting is famous.


Besides, magic isn't that special in D&D. A good chunk of people, and a lot of monsters can do magic. You can walk into town and pick up potions which instantly heal your wounds (they aren't even hard to make; it just takes a while). Every temple and every two-bit cult has at least one guy who will throw magic at you, and they probably won't even charge for it.

But you're both missing the point. I'm not the one that said all magic items are definitely more valuable than a painting. Instead, Knaight insisted that any masterpiece painting by some old, dead master is somehow automatically more priceless than any magic item ever, saying, literally, "way more priceless than some magic sword of which there are other similar ones." That's what I'm contesting. Some magic sword? If it's a magic sword, as far as we know at this juncture in the game, then definitely it's a masterpiece of a sword crafted by a master of their art. And "of which there are similar ones," is just as ridiculous. So, because there are dozens of "masterpiece" paintings of naked women or bowls of oranges, they are so similar that none of them are worth anything? Given what we know of magic items and how they work, such a generalized statement is pretty ludicrous if you ask me.

[Sartharina]

But you're both missing the point. I'm not the one that said all magic items are definitely more valuable than a painting. Instead, Knaight insisted that any masterpiece painting by some old, dead master is somehow automatically more priceless than any magic item ever, saying, literally, "way more priceless than some magic sword of which there are other similar ones." That's what I'm contesting. Some magic sword? If it's a magic sword, as far as we know at this juncture in the game, then definitely it's a masterpiece of a sword crafted by a master of their art. And "of which there are similar ones," is just as ridiculous. So, because there are dozens of "masterpiece" paintings of naked women or bowls of oranges, they are so similar that none of them are worth anything? Given what we know of magic items and how they work, such a generalized statement is pretty ludicrous if you ask me.I think the point he was making was that what makes an item valuable is whether it's a masterpiece or not, as opposed to whether it glows in the dark and lets you shoot lightning out your bum. A nonmagical painting could be worth as much as a magical sword if they're both artistic masterpieces. Instead of "Ooh... ancient one-of-a-kind original painting from a long-dead artist? Here's 250 GP for it! ... is that one of those +2 Magic Longswords pumped out by the dozens from that wizard that lives by the coast? I'll give you 4,000 GP for it!"

[Aron Times]

Magic weapons of even a lowly +1 enchantment are very useful against several hardy monsters in the Monster Manual. Lycanthropes, for example, are immune to nonmagical weapons with the exception of silver weapons. The difference between having a +1 sword and not having one is the difference between a challenging encounter and a nigh-impossible one. Basically, when it comes to physical damage immunities, a creature is vulnerable to either a specific substance (silver for lycanthropes, adamantine for golems, etc.) or a magic weapon. That throwaway +1 weapon in other editions is like a Swiss Army Knife that cuts through damage immunities in 5e.

[Doomchild]

Instead of "Ooh... ancient one-of-a-kind original painting from a long-dead artist? Here's 250 GP for it! ... is that one of those +2 Magic Longswords pumped out by the dozens from that wizard that lives by the coast? I'll give you 4,000 GP for it!"

This. Is. What. I'm. Arguing. Against.

In 5e +2 magic longswords ARE NOT PUMPED OUT BY THE DOZENS by some wizard. They're not. I know that's difficult to understand for those of you coming from 3rd or 4th edition.

I'm not saying a one-of-kind, non-magical painting CAN'T be priceless. When did I say that? I'm arguing that insinuating that such items are always more valuable than ANY magic item is wildly inaccurate. However, there's a lot of people that think magic items CAN'T be priceless, which I find rather crazy, especially when one of those same people think that non-magic items can and should be priceless.

Just to hammer my point home, how is a non-magical painting, painted by one of the greatest painters alive somehow "MORE PRICELESSTM" than a MAGICAL painting, painted by one of the greatest painters alive, imbued with magic in some way that the greatest living magic users don't fully comprehend, and created with just as much artistic skill, integrity, and passion as the non-magical one, but this magic one grants every person who looks upon it one Wish as per the spell? How is the first one eligible to be priceless, but the second one should be something players can buy or trade to have? I don't understand this thought process, please explain.

[Lord Kristivas]

Just to hammer my point home, how is a non-magical painting, painted by one of the greatest painters alive somehow "MORE PRICELESSTM" than a MAGICAL painting, painted by one of the greatest painters alive, imbued with magic in some way that the greatest living magic users don't fully comprehend, and created with just as much artistic skill, integrity, and passion as the non-magical one, but this magic one grants every person who looks upon it one Wish as per the spell? How is the first one eligible to be priceless, but the second one should be something players can buy or trade to have? I don't understand this thought process, please explain.

This won't be easy to settle, because the value of Art is subjective. You could name and show me paintings that would sell for 10+ million dollars to the right collector, and I wouldn't spend $10 on it. A painting is only "priceless" if everyone wants to buy it. It is an item of luxury, with no other practical value other than decoration. Yet, there are paintings sold in which the price of one goes for more than all of the collective money everyone posting in this thread will make throughout their lives.

Often, an art piece will be coined as valuable based on the painter. In your example above, if non-magical master painter puts out a work of art, and folks know he doesn't use the voodoo, he might garner far more respect for doing it "naturally". The painter imbued with some sort of magic, should that ever get out, could always be thought of as lesser for needing arcane help to paint, and thus his paintings could decrease on negative press alone. People hate a "cheater", after all.


Personally, I see being able to trade magic items as vital. If my fighter has trained in swords and prefers swords, he shouldn't have to be stuck with a silly-looking flail because no longswords will drop. Or should that Staff of Defense that none of the party can use have to collect some dust while we either lug it around with us, or toss it in a vault? Too valuable for anyone to buy/afford, too valuable to just toss on the road. So, what? A group should just have to carry this crap around with them? I don't care for that kind of game at all, I'm afraid.

[Dienekes]

So what exactly are those?

A means for determining advantages based on weapons usually in the form of more attacks, more accuracy, or a higher initiative. Personally I tend to hate them. From my experience they tend to be one of those things that fuel the depiction of lumbering slow melee weapons, and tends to focus on weapon weight (and often an inaccurate view of weapon weight) for determining advantages to the exclusion of far more important aspects of a weapon when determining who hits first, such as reach, style of use, and shape.

I've also seen it do weird things especially when character points are more important to damage than weapon dice. Attacking with a feather for the ultimate benefit. Though, admittedly that was one horrible use.

[Person_Man]

I was hoping that the Dungeon Master's Guide would be a guide on how to be a dungeon master, and not Unearthed Arcana. The Player's Handbook contains virtually nothing about how to create a flavorful campaign world, plan a campaign, construct encounter locations, create memorable NPCs, adjudicate player disagreements, construct fun encounters, decide on the level treasure, keep everything organized, come up with ideas on the fly when players go off in their own direction, and so on. If the DMG doesn't contain it, then the only way for new DMs to learn how is through mentoring. Which is fine, if you happen to know another good DM. But if you don't, starting a new gaming group will be a painful process of trial and error.

Optional rules are nifty options for veteran DMs. I'm all in favor of printing an Unearthed Arcana or whatever as soon as possible. But new players are, by definition, not veterans. Giving them a ton of different rule options before they know how to construct and run the basic structure of the game is like sending a high school student into Home Depot and telling them to build a house.

[Sartharina]

This. Is. What. I'm. Arguing. Against.

In 5e +2 magic longswords ARE NOT PUMPED OUT BY THE DOZENS by some wizard. They're not. I know that's difficult to understand for those of you coming from 3rd or 4th edition.They might be. The wizards who live by the coast just pumped out a +1 Sword of Nunyabisniz.

[DireSickFish]

I'm actually looking forward to kingdom builder rules. It seems a lot of games I play in/DM for end up with the PC's getting a "base of operations" of sorts. It'd be nice to see what upgrades they can get, and ways I can challenge them about the location.

Monster races will be nice to add as well. I wonder if they are going to have there own entries like in the PHB or just be a way to modify the stat blocks in the MM to turn a monster into a playable race.

The list of alternative rules is a bit overwhelming. Don't get me wrong I'm stoked to see them even if I won't be using them. Person Man has the right idea. In 3.5 I actually thought the PHB2 did a better job of building a world and explaining how to run than the DMG did.

[archaeo]

I was hoping that the Dungeon Master's Guide would be a guide on how to be a dungeon master, and not Unearthed Arcana. The Player's Handbook contains virtually nothing about how to create a flavorful campaign world, plan a campaign, construct encounter locations, create memorable NPCs, adjudicate player disagreements, construct fun encounters, decide on the level treasure, keep everything organized, come up with ideas on the fly when players go off in their own direction, and so on. If the DMG doesn't contain it, then the only way for new DMs to learn how is through mentoring. Which is fine, if you happen to know another good DM. But if you don't, starting a new gaming group will be a painful process of trial and error.

Optional rules are nifty options for veteran DMs. I'm all in favor of printing an Unearthed Arcana or whatever as soon as possible. But new players are, by definition, not veterans. Giving them a ton of different rule options before they know how to construct and run the basic structure of the game is like sending a high school student into Home Depot and telling them to build a house.

Conversely, while that DM advice is only useful for newbie DMs, the rules modules will be useful for every DM, including newbies who become experts.

That said, I don't think there's any good reason to believe that the DMG is going to completely eschew all attempts at teaching DM skills. It doesn't take a huge number of pages to cover this stuff; if you assume that the DMG is going to be 1/3 rules, 1/3 DM advice, and 1/3 magic items, I imagine you'll get a decent mix, and a lot of that advice is going to go hand in hand with the rules anyway (creating encounters, creating campaigns, etc.)

[Knaight]

Really? A non-magical painting is more priceless than a MAGICAL sword, handcrafted by a long dead master, imbued with magic through a process we don't even understand yet? You're sure about that?

I mean, sure, if your world is populated by dozens of vanilla +1 swords, they might ONLY be worth as much as a valyrian steel sword (which is so much that the richest noble in Westeros has not been able to buy one despite years of trying). But I thought magic items in 5e were supposed to be rare and unique things with significant backstories.
The rules regarding loot dispensation suggest that "dozens" is a vast understatement. Moreover, it is genre convention for the magical swords to actually be used, which means that their value is going to be based in large measure on how useful they are. They're a heck of a lot less useful than an army.


But you're both missing the point. I'm not the one that said all magic items are definitely more valuable than a painting. Instead, Knaight insisted that any masterpiece painting by some old, dead master is somehow automatically more priceless than any magic item ever, saying, literally, "way more priceless than some magic sword of which there are other similar ones." That's what I'm contesting. Some magic sword? If it's a magic sword, as far as we know at this juncture in the game, then definitely it's a masterpiece of a sword crafted by a master of their art. And "of which there are similar ones," is just as ridiculous. So, because there are dozens of "masterpiece" paintings of naked women or bowls of oranges, they are so similar that none of them are worth anything? Given what we know of magic items and how they work, such a generalized statement is pretty ludicrous if you ask me.
I don't know how you got "any magic item ever" out of "some magic sword of which there are similar ones". Mechanically, a magic sword is just a normal sword that is marginally better. Maybe it's worth more than a painting by a master as an art object, but as a tool it's not that impressive.

[Doomchild]

The rules regarding loot dispensation suggest that "dozens" is a vast understatement.

I guess I missed these rules. I didn't think any such rules existed yet for 5e. Where are you seeing them?

[MaxWilson]

Conversely, while that DM advice is only useful for newbie DMs, the rules modules will be useful for every DM, including newbies who become experts.

That said, I don't think there's any good reason to believe that the DMG is going to completely eschew all attempts at teaching DM skills. It doesn't take a huge number of pages to cover this stuff; if you assume that the DMG is going to be 1/3 rules, 1/3 DM advice, and 1/3 magic items, I imagine you'll get a decent mix, and a lot of that advice is going to go hand in hand with the rules anyway (creating encounters, creating campaigns, etc.)

The packaging of 5E so far does not inspire confidence in WotC's awareness of the need to teach DM'ing through some means other than osmosis from existing DMs. To me that is a good reason to believe that the DMG will either eschew the topic entirely or do it poorly, about as effectively as the PHB covers Alignments. (One sentence per alignment plus some Ideals in the background section.) Most of us probably never even noticed because we already knew what Alignments were and so didn't need any explanation, but the PHB is not written with new players in mind.

I'd like to see at least some basic attention given to DM'ing in the PHB. They spend half of a column illustrating a gaming session, would it be that much more difficult to say, "A player can always do one of two things: ask questions and declare actions, and then DM tells them the answer or the result of their attempt" and "Every encounter requires a dramatic question that resolves one or more conflicts" (and then explain what that means)? If you want not to be rate-limited by existing DMs, the ability to teach DM'ing out of the book should not be relegated to the "hacker's guide" that comes out four months later.

[Dralnu]

There's going to be a section about creating your own monsters, right? I mean, it wasn't in the monster manual, so it's gotta be in here... right?

[Slipperychicken]

There's going to be a section about creating your own monsters, right? I mean, it wasn't in the monster manual, so it's gotta be in here... right?

Yeah, but if they give you an easy way to make whatever monster you can imagine, then how are they going to keep selling Monster Manuals? :smalltongue:

[Starsinger]

Yeah, but if they give you an easy way to make whatever monster you can imagine, then how are they going to keep selling Monster Manuals? :smalltongue:

I dunno, 4e did it.

[archaeo]

The packaging of 5E so far does not inspire confidence in WotC's awareness of the need to teach DM'ing through some means other than osmosis from existing DMs. To me that is a good reason to believe that the DMG will either eschew the topic entirely or do it poorly, about as effectively as the PHB covers Alignments. (One sentence per alignment plus some Ideals in the background section.) Most of us probably never even noticed because we already knew what Alignments were and so didn't need any explanation, but the PHB is not written with new players in mind.

So, because the Player's Handbook doesn't do a great job of teaching DMs, you think WotC is dropping all the balls? WotC's effort for newbie DMs came in the form of the Starter Set, which does do a decent job of giving a template of what an adventure can be like as well as some tips for what to do next. At the very least, they'll learn how to run an adventure, and with HotDQ and plenty of third-party content already popping up online, they'll have plenty to do if they need more advice before they're ready to run their own campaign.

Alignments are given a quick treatment because they're more or less vestigial in 5e and because the classic alignments don't require a thesis apiece to cover. They're pretty simple and broad concepts.


I'd like to see at least some basic attention given to DM'ing in the PHB. They spend half of a column illustrating a gaming session, would it be that much more difficult to say, "A player can always do one of two things: ask questions and declare actions, and then DM tells them the answer or the result of their attempt" and "Every encounter requires a dramatic question that resolves one or more conflicts" (and then explain what that means)? If you want not to be rate-limited by existing DMs, the ability to teach DM'ing out of the book should not be relegated to the "hacker's guide" that comes out four months later.

The PHB already feels pretty stuffed, between all of the player information, the game rules (which is a pretty compact section!) and the spells. The introduction and the published adventures are pretty good starts on the basics of DMing, from what I can tell. The DMG is the proper place for in-depth advice, and I imagine there'll be a healthy chunk of it. Personally, I think the writing outside of the dry rules we're usually focused on in this board is pretty clever and concise; the player advice is certainly good, and I don't see why we should expect the DM advice to be bad once we get to it.

Also, WotC is almost certainly not worried about rate-limiting anything. They're selling high-quality hardbacks to the enthusiasts and hobbyists. Newbies can be expected to get the Starter Set, which does a good job of introducing the game to players and DMs alike, and then they've got all of HotDQ to play (or one of the many third-party adventures) if they're not ready to start branching out.

Edited to add: And don't forget that the Basic DM Rules will also get an update; I wouldn't be at all surprised if it includes a lot of the advice stuff, since Mearls has previously said that they don't plan on including anything else but some more magic items and a few important modules.

[jkat718]

I guess I missed these rules. I didn't think any such rules existed yet for 5e. Where are you seeing them?

The DM's rules from the D&D Basic ruleset (http://dnd.wizards.com/articles/features/basicrules) have magic items, and I read the rules for loot somewhere, but I can't seem to find them. I think they were from LMoP; if so, they might have been removed for copyright reasons. If someone here has them, links would be greatly appreciated.

[Lokiare]

Yep. I read these forums and see it taken for granted but in my current game I don't allow variant human or multiclassing.

I take it for granted because I refuse to play in a game without variant human, multiclassing, and feats. So any other discussion is irrelevant.

[Greylind]

Yes, really. In case you're wondering what kinds of switches and toggles we may see. (I have no details, just the list.)

I want this book so bad I can taste it. It tastes like victory and slightly singed PC's.