Everything you probably missed from the dungeon master guide preview

[CyberThread]

http://tribality.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/11/20141126_213140.jpg

http://tribality.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/11/hex.jpg

http://tribality.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/11/hex2.jpg

http://tribality.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/11/monster-quick-stats.png

http://tribality.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/11/bard.jpg

http://tribality.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/11/dmg4.jpg

http://tribality.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/11/dmg1.jpg

[pwykersotz]

Oooh...


Most people on this forum seem to hate speed modifiers to initiative, but I want to try running a game like that at least once. :smallsmile:

[Shadow]

Oooh...

Most people on this forum seem to hate speed modifiers to initiative, but I want to try running a game like that at least once. :smallsmile:

It's actually a lot of fun.
One way to slow down combat, but make it a LOT more interesting, is to work initiative backwards and include speed mods, breaking things up during the round.
All initiative mods are reversed. Dex subtracts, fast weapons subtract, slow weapons add. Reverse it all.
Give everyone tokens representing each 5' of movement they have available, one for reaction, one for bonus action.
Roll d20, add/subtract appropriate mod(s), low number goes first.
Count up from -10 or so.
Each additional action (or spell completion) occurs at a higher count.
Additional attacks add +5 cumulatively. Bonus actions add +2. Spell completion takes +(spell level). Reactions are free of modifiers. Each 5' of movement counts as +1.
So if you get initiative 4 and go first as a fighter, on initiative 4 you can move as much or as little as you want and attack. That's one attack. You next attack will be available at initiative 9.
The wizard goes on 5. He begins casting fireball (level 3) and it will go off on 8.
The warlock goes on 7. He casts eldritch blast. The first blast goes of now (level 0).
On init 8 the wizard's fireball goes off.
On init 9 the fighter takes his second attack and declares that he wants to use his off hand attack with TWF (which will go on 11).
So on and so forth.

If you're using a grid, you can make each 5' of movement take 1 init count.
It all makes combat extremely fluid and much more realistic, as many things are happening simultaneously. But it slows things down quite a bit.
If you want fast and loose, the standard works very well.
If you want simulationist and chaotic, this system is friggin awesome.

[Nargrakhan]

Hmmm... interesting stuff about the Initiative Modifiers.

I wonder how that will impact the martial vs. caster argument...

[Dalebert]

Is casting time based on the spell cast or the slot used?

[MaxWilson]

Is casting time based on the spell cast or the slot used?

As with a Rakshasa's magical immunity, it's ambiguous. "The spell's level" is the phrase used, just like for a Rakshasa. Globe of Invulnerability clarifies that it protects against low-level spells even when cast from a high-level slot. Does that make Globe of Invulnerability special, or do Rakshasa work that way too and Globe simply happens to note it explicitly? Nobody knows.

Since Speed Factor initiative is an optional rule variant I think you're safe just ruling on this however suits your taste.

[odigity]

It all makes combat extremely fluid and much more realistic, as many things are happening simultaneously. But it slows things down quite a bit.
...
If you want simulationist and chaotic, this system is friggin awesome.

Definitely slower, probably too slow to consider. But agreed, that sounds amazing.

[Shadow]

A spell's level is that of the slot it was cast in. Essentially, every caster gets the Heighten Spell metamagic from previous editions for free.
Globe is the exception, where specific trumps general.

[odigity]

As with a Rakshasa's magical immunity, it's ambiguous. "The spell's level" is the phrase used, just like for a Rakshasa. Globe of Invulnerability clarifies that it protects against low-level spells even when cast from a high-level slot. Does that make Globe of Invulnerability special, or do Rakshasa work that way too and Globe simply happens to note it explicitly? Nobody knows.

Since Speed Factor initiative is an optional rule variant I think you're safe just ruling on this however suits your taste.

I have no idea what RAI is, but if you want plain logic, I'd say the spell shouldn't take longer to cast just because of the spell slot bump -- it's still the exact same spell, you're just putting more of your limited daily budget of personal energy into it.

[JAL_1138]

I think the big question is how speed factor applies to Moon Druid Wild Shape.

EDIT: (It probably doesn't since it's a class feature rather than a "spell" with a spell level)

[MaxWilson]

I think the big question is how speed factor applies to Moon Druid Wild Shape.

EDIT: (It probably doesn't since it's a class feature rather than a "spell" with a spell level)

DM-dependent. It says that for other actions you should use your judgment, e.g. raising a portcullis is probably a -5.

If I were trying to come up with rules, I'd probably say that it is -CR to initiative, where CR is the CR of the creature you are becoming. Although that might be quite harsh since a mammoth will also get -5 for being a large creature.

Under these rules it seems that Held Action (attack) one round and then attack with a fast attack next round is probably a good way to damage/kill an Onion Druid, since you'll get two rounds of attacks before he can heal.

[Dienekes]

Oooh...


Most people on this forum seem to hate speed modifiers to initiative, but I want to try running a game like that at least once. :smallsmile:

I've always hated it because it makes no sense. Why does the guy with the dinky 1 foot blade get to make their attack first? No, he has to get within the reach of the guy with the spear. The spear goes first.

[Dalebert]

I have no idea what RAI is,

You'll see these acronyms a lot around here.
RAI = Rules as Intended
RAW = Rules as Written


but if you want plain logic, I'd say the spell shouldn't take longer to cast just because of the spell slot bump -- it's still the exact same spell, you're just putting more of your limited daily budget of personal energy into it.

I can understand that reasoning but it could go either way depending. Many spells are boosted up significantly by higher slots so I could also see it as a Magic Missile cast at 3rd level really is more like a 3rd level spell than a 1st. Really it's probably going to depend on what people think is balanced since it could easily be explained to go either way and still make sense.

[CyberThread]

I've always hated it because it makes no sense. Why does the guy with the dinky 1 foot blade get to make their attack first? No, he has to get within the reach of the guy with the spear. The spear goes first.



That is what attacks of opportunity were about.

[JAL_1138]

DM-dependent. It says that for other actions you should use your judgment, e.g. raising a portcullis is probably a -5.

If I were trying to come up with rules, I'd probably say that it is -CR to initiative, where CR is the CR of the creature you are becoming. Although that might be quite harsh since a mammoth will also get -5 for being a large creature.

Under these rules it seems that Held Action (attack) one round and then attack with a fast attack next round is probably a good way to damage/kill an Onion Druid, since you'll get two rounds of attacks before he can heal.

Behold the dreaded Champion Fighter, chopper of Onions. :smalltongue:

[odigity]

You'll see these acronyms a lot around here.
RAI = Rules as Intended
RAW = Rules as Written

I know what RAI means. I was trying to say that I have no idea what their actual intent was with that rule (spell level or spell slot level).

[Dalebert]

I know what RAI means. I was trying to say that I have no idea what their actual intent was with that rule (spell level or spell slot level).

Oh, right. I don't either. Until I read it myself, it seems ambiguous and up to the DM.

[JAL_1138]

I've always hated it because it makes no sense. Why does the guy with the dinky 1 foot blade get to make their attack first? No, he has to get within the reach of the guy with the spear. The spear goes first.


That is what attacks of opportunity were about.

Exactly. There's a penalty to initiative for the spear because they *are* slower to use than a dagger, and so, if both are in reach of each other already, the dagger goes first. Try to stab someone right beside you with an 8ft spear if they have a dagger. You'll be swiss cheese by the time you can do it. But look at the rules for reach AoOs and especially Polearm Master--the dagger user has to eat an AoO to get near enough to you to stab you, if you haven't used your Reaction yet. It would work fairly well in 3rd, 4th, or 5th.

Admittedly 2e kind of forgot the part about them having to get past the pointy end of the spear intact before they get to stab you.

[Dienekes]

That is what attacks of opportunity were about.

Except it's even more than that. Longer reach is one hell of an advantage in a fight that is not accounted for. A greatsword only attacks adjacent enemies just like a dagger, yet the greatsword will suffer from the initiative penalties, despite the fact that it has 5+ feet of reach on the dagger user, and if the guy even knows the basics of how to use that thing, should not let the dagger user get close enough to engage.

That's what really gets me about the speed penalties, it pretends to be realistic while ignoring reality and only focuses on misconceptions.

Then we get into the real nitty gritty stuff like longswords only being about 3 pounds anyway, while the shortsword gladius was about the same so they really shouldn't be noticeably slower.

[Shadow]

It is not ambiguous and it is not up to the DM.
As I just said a moment ago:
A spell's level is that of the slot it was cast in. Essentially, every caster gets the Heighten Spell metamagic from previous editions for free.
Globe is the exception, where specific trumps general

Page 201, PHB:
"When a spellcaster casts a spell using a slot that is higher level than the spell, the spell assumes the higher level for that casting. For instance, if Umara casts magic missile using one of her 2nd level slots, that magic missile is 2nd level. Effectively, the spell expands to fill the slot it is put into."

[Dalebert]

Page 201, PHB:
"When a spellcaster casts a spell using a slot that is higher level than the spell, the spell assumes the higher level for that casting. For instance, if Umara casts magic missile using one of her 2nd level slots, that magic missile is 2nd level. Effectively, the spell expands to fill the slot it is put into."

Hmm. No one has answered Q 229 from the RAW thread (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showsinglepost.php?p=18465411&postcount=499). This seems to mean the answer would be "yes".

[Shadow]

Hmm. No one has answered Q 229 from the RAW thread (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showsinglepost.php?p=18465411&postcount=499). This seems to mean the answer would be "yes".

That would be the DM's call, which is why no one has given an answer in the RAW thread.
Raw, the answer would technically be No, because a magic missile, for example, is 1st level unless and until it gets cast in a higher level slot. It only counts as a 2nd level spell once that happens.
So RAW, No. When you are simply choosing spells, it counts as the level listed in the book.
But it would be reasonable for a DM to allow such things in certain cases. Create Undead would not be one of those cases, in my mind.

[MaxWilson]

Except it's even more than that. Longer reach is one ---- of an advantage in a fight that is not accounted for. A greatsword only attacks adjacent enemies just like a dagger, yet the greatsword will suffer from the initiative penalties, despite the fact that it has 5+ feet of reach on the dagger user, and if the guy even knows the basics of how to use that thing, should not let the dagger user get close enough to engage.

If you feel the speed modifiers are wrong, feel free to change them. I could also imagine a different set of modifiers such as "piercing weapons +2, slashing weapons +0." Each set of modifiers implies a slightly different game physics, but that's okay, just pick one that you can believe in.


Then we get into the real nitty gritty stuff like longswords only being about 3 pounds anyway, while the shortsword gladius was about the same so they really shouldn't be noticeably slower.

"Moment of inertia"?


It is not ambiguous and it is not up to the DM.
As I just said a moment ago:
A spell's level is that of the slot it was cast in. Essentially, every caster gets the Heighten Spell metamagic from previous editions for free.
Globe is the exception, where specific trumps general

Page 201, PHB:
"When a spellcaster casts a spell using a slot that is higher level than the spell, the spell assumes the higher level for that casting. For instance, if Umara casts magic missile using one of her 2nd level slots, that magic missile is 2nd level. Effectively, the spell expands to fill the slot it is put into."

Oh, good catch Shadow! You're right, it's not ambiguous then.

[Dienekes]

If you feel the speed modifiers are wrong, feel free to change them. I could also imagine a different set of modifiers such as "piercing weapons +2, slashing weapons +0." Each set of modifiers implies a slightly different game physics, but that's okay, just pick one that you can believe in.

Oh I just don't use them, because they make no sense. I dislike them because they promote misconceptions on how weapons work, and I like weapons. They're complex and beautiful tools that have a lot of thought and dedication into designing them for a great deal of efficiency. To see a game that has, unfortunately, been one of the larger means of spreading information of medieval weaponry to the population fall into the same ridiculous cliche of the big slow bulky mass weapon is saddening.


"Moment of inertia"?

Generally was accounted for with a heavier pommel to distribute weight efficiently. These weapons were designed to be fast. Even mass weapons like maces and axes generally were designed to circumvent this problem. Except the katana, it still puzzles me how specifically that weapon became the one people think was fast, but that's an argument for a different thread.

[pwykersotz]

Oh I just don't use them, because they make no sense. I dislike them because they promote misconceptions on how weapons work, and I like weapons. They're complex and beautiful tools that have a lot of thought and dedication into designing them for a great deal of efficiency. To see a game that has, unfortunately, been one of the larger means of spreading information of medieval weaponry to the population fall into the same ridiculous cliche of the big slow bulky mass weapon is saddening.



Generally was accounted for with a heavier pommel to distribute weight efficiently. These weapons were designed to be fast. Even mass weapons like maces and axes generally were designed to circumvent this problem. Except the katana, it still puzzles me how specifically that weapon became the one people think was fast, but that's an argument for a different thread.

Yeah, D&D has never in my experience simulated the nuance of weapons well. Know of any systems that do? I'm not a weapon buff, merely curious, so I couldn't pick out such a system if it did the conga across my monitor.

[Dienekes]

Yeah, D&D has never in my experience simulated the nuance of weapons well. Know of any systems that do? I'm not a weapon buff, merely curious, so I couldn't pick out such a system if it did the conga across my monitor.

Galloglaich (from this very board) created something called the Codex Martialis which does just about the best you can hope to do when turning the D&D d20 system into something that models real weaponry.

There is also the Riddle of Steel, a dead system that is hard to find legally. However, it has one of the most realistic combat systems that is both simple to figure out the basics of, but complex as you further look into how it all fits together. Unfortunately, truth be told, everything except the weapons and armor systems from the game varies from passable to downright unusable. I love it to bits.

I've heard good things about some GURPS versions of combat, and Burning Wheel/Mouse Guard, but I have not played either so I cannot verify.

[pwykersotz]

Galloglaich (from this very board) created something called the Codex Martialis which does just about the best you can hope to do when turning the D&D d20 system into something that models real weaponry.

There is also the Riddle of Steel, a dead system that is hard to find legally. However, it has one of the most realistic combat systems that is both simple to figure out the basics of, but complex as you further look into how it all fits together. Unfortunately, truth be told, everything except the weapons and armor systems from the game varies from passable to downright unusable. I love it to bits.

I've heard good things about some GURPS versions of combat, and Burning Wheel/Mouse Guard, but I have not played either so I cannot verify.

Cool, I've noted both Riddle of Steel and the Codex Martialis to take a look at later. :smallsmile:

[JAL_1138]

Oh I just don't use them, because they make no sense. I dislike them because they promote misconceptions on how weapons work, and I like weapons. They're complex and beautiful tools that have a lot of thought and dedication into designing them for a great deal of efficiency. To see a game that has, unfortunately, been one of the larger means of spreading information of medieval weaponry to the population fall into the same ridiculous cliche of the big slow bulky mass weapon is saddening.

Generally was accounted for with a heavier pommel to distribute weight efficiently. These weapons were designed to be fast. Even mass weapons like maces and axes generally were designed to circumvent this problem. Except the katana, it still puzzles me how specifically that weapon became the one people think was fast, but that's an argument for a different thread.

The fact that you can't stab someone with the big ol' spike on top of a halberd because it only does slashing damage, or that a medieval/renaissance longsword (not the accurate name anyway) cannot be used to stab (or bludgeon if you're wearing hand protection to hold the blade, nor can you half-sword for greater control at close range), and that the weights are all wrong, is not even remotely the complete list of what bugs me about 5e's weapons. Side note, take a look at The Riddle of Steel. It actually bothers to give different stats for a basket-hilt claymore, a mortuary-hilt backsword, and a schiavona.

And you make a valid point about sword-vs-dagger reach. I can stab or cut faster with my bowie knife than my smallsword if I'm starting at bowie knife range in both cases, even though the bowie is heavier, but at the smallsword's effective range...while it's not impossible to get around the longer reach, it's going to be difficult to do without getting poked. Well, unless you dodge and grab the blade in your free hand...

Personally I'd be happy if it just applied to spellcasting (and Wild Shape), because anything that makes using magic in combat trickier than running up and stabbing someone in the voonerables (but that stops short of what 4e did) is usually a good thing as far as I'm concerned, but then the casters would complain that I'm not applying it to weapons.

EDIT: Ninja'd regarding Riddle of Steel, you're already aware of it. Missed your comment on it.

[Invader]

All I care about are feats and prestige classes, neither of which I've heard anything about. :smallfrown:

[JoeJ]

All I care about are feats and prestige classes, neither of which I've heard anything about. :smallfrown:

Feats are in the PHB. I don't know why there needs to be anything else about them in the DMG. And I hadn't heard that they were planning to have prestige classes in this edition.

[Invader]

Feats are in the PHB. I don't know why there needs to be anything else about them in the DMG. And I hadn't heard that they were planning to have prestige classes in this edition.

Yeah there's like 10, they don't offer much in the way of customization. I didn't figure there'd be prestige classes exactky but more paths or more specialized paths would be nice.

[MaxWilson]

All I care about are feats and prestige classes, neither of which I've heard anything about. :smallfrown:

I don't see either of those in the DMG.

[Mirakk]

The fact that you can't stab someone with the big ol' spike on top of a halberd because it only does slashing damage, or that a medieval/renaissance longsword (not the accurate name anyway) cannot be used to stab (or bludgeon if you're wearing hand protection to hold the blade

Actually, I was really excited to read the "improvised weapon" rules, because as written they would allow for such a thing. They say that if an improvised weapon is similar enough to a weapon you're trained in, you may use your proficiency for that weapon. This means you can use your war hammer's pick on the back side for Piercing if you wanted to provided you had proficiency with the war pick etc.


"In many cases, an improvised weapon is similar to an actual weapon and can be treated as such. For example, a table leg is akin to a club. At the DM’s option, a character proficient with a weapon can use a similar object as if it were that weapon and use his or her proficiency bonus."

[Pex]

I do like the DMG is telling you that yes, PCs are going to have magic items. Now I only have to suffer from the smugness of those boasting of running low magic games as if they're a superior, better way to play. Not talking about anyone in particular, just the general impression I get when someone advocates it or talks about their game as being low magic. That is not limited to 5E.

[MaxWilson]

I do like the DMG is telling you that yes, PCs are going to have magic items. Now I only have to suffer from the smugness of those boasting of running low magic games as if they're a superior, better way to play. Not talking about anyone in particular, just the general impression I get when someone advocates it or talks about their game as being low magic. That is not limited to 5E.

Er, well, the main game I play in right now is quite a high-magic-item campaign but I wish it were low-magic, because the magic items tend to eclipse the characters' class features. I don't know if that is what you mean by "smug" but it's a thing. Sorry if that offends you.

[Shadow]

I always prefer low(er) magic games rather than high magic.
They make you excited for even lowly magic trinkets, and they feel more rewarding because of that.

[cobaltstarfire]

It's pretty neat that they've got rules for both hexes and square grid in there...I haven't looked at my 3.5 dmg recently but I don't think it had anything for that. (My current DM loves/prefers hexes so I bet he'll be excited to learn there are clear rules defined for it).

As far as magic level, I've never met anyone smug about it (high or low) but I think whatever level fits for the game is the perfect level. They can both be fun in their own ways.

[SiuiS]

Oooh...


Most people on this forum seem to hate speed modifiers to initiative, but I want to try running a game like that at least once. :smallsmile:

Yeah. It's about time they brought this back. I'm glad. :smallsmile:


It's actually a lot of fun.
One way to slow down combat, but make it a LOT more interesting, is to work initiative backwards and include speed mods, breaking things up during the round.
All initiative mods are reversed. Dex subtracts, fast weapons subtract, slow weapons add. Reverse it all.
Give everyone tokens representing each 5' of movement they have available, one for reaction, one for bonus action.
Roll d20, add/subtract appropriate mod(s), low number goes first.
Count up from -10 or so.
Each additional action (or spell completion) occurs at a higher count.
Additional attacks add +5 cumulatively. Bonus actions add +2. Spell completion takes +(spell level). Reactions are free of modifiers. Each 5' of movement counts as +1.
So if you get initiative 4 and go first as a fighter, on initiative 4 you can move as much or as little as you want and attack. That's one attack. You next attack will be available at initiative 9.
The wizard goes on 5. He begins casting fireball (level 3) and it will go off on 8.
The warlock goes on 7. He casts eldritch blast. The first blast goes of now (level 0).
On init 8 the wizard's fireball goes off.
On init 9 the fighter takes his second attack and declares that he wants to use his off hand attack with TWF (which will go on 11).
So on and so forth.

If you're using a grid, you can make each 5' of movement take 1 init count.
It all makes combat extremely fluid and much more realistic, as many things are happening simultaneously. But it slows things down quite a bit.
If you want fast and loose, the standard works very well.
If you want simulationist and chaotic, this system is friggin awesome.

Man, that would be killer. In like, every sense. XD

[Knaight]

Actually, I was really excited to read the "improvised weapon" rules, because as written they would allow for such a thing. They say that if an improvised weapon is similar enough to a weapon you're trained in, you may use your proficiency for that weapon. This means you can use your war hammer's pick on the back side for Piercing if you wanted to provided you had proficiency with the war pick etc.

It's a bit of a kludge though. Stabbing someone with a halberd isn't improvised in any sense of the word.

[JAL_1138]

This means you can use your war hammer's pick on the back side for Piercing if you wanted to provided you had proficiency with the war pick etc.

Agreed with Knaight. If you have proficiency in warhammer, you ought to have proficiency with the pick side of it, since it's an integral part of what it is and how it's used. Like with the halberd spike/spear; that's literally a key component of how you use one, and if you aren't proficient with the spike and the hook as well as the axehead, you're proficient with, say, Lochaber axe instead of halberd.

[Dalebert]

Raw, the answer would technically be No, because a magic missile, for example, is 1st level unless and until it gets cast in a higher level slot. It only counts as a 2nd level spell once that happens.
So RAW, No. When you are simply choosing spells, it counts as the level listed in the book.
But it would be reasonable for a DM to allow such things in certain cases. Create Undead would not be one of those cases, in my mind.

Agree that it's not RAW but I can imagine many DMs allowing it. What's your reasoning for not allowing Create Undead in particular? This is the only way a warlock would be able to scale it or any 6th+ level spell, i.e. by permanently giving up his one and only 9th level spell known as well as his only 9th level slot. Seems like a fairly high price to pay just to cast a spell at its full power which sorcerers and wizards of the same level can both do trivially without giving up any potential.

[Shadow]

What's your reasoning for not allowing Create Undead in particular?

Because if you need it boosted to 9th level you're trying to make a pseudo-army.
If you're trying to build an army of undead then it follows that you're trying to break my campaign.
So you need a 9th level Create Undead every day so that you can break my campaign.

Nope.

[Dalebert]

Because if you need it boosted to 9th level you're trying to make a pseudo-army.
If you're trying to build an army of undead then it follows that you're trying to break my campaign.
So you need a 9th level Create Undead every day so that you can break my campaign.

Nope.

Still not following the reasoning.

Honestly, if I did it at all, I'd probably do it for fewer but more powerful creatures so they'd be more scaled to my level. But how does a warlock doing it break your campaign but not a wizard or sorcerer? They can abuse it far worse because they can learn or prepare the spell with just one slot and then cast it every day with their multiple high level casting slots--twice at 6th, twice at 7th, once at 8th, and once at 9th, all while retaining the immense versatility of all their other known/prepared slots. Now that's an army. Even if a warlock used all four of his high level known spells--IMHO a very bad and wasteful choice, forever losing other spell options--he could still only cast it four times a day--at 6th, 7th, 8th, and 9th.

Maybe the spell's broken, but if it's broken to let a warlock do this then the spell itself has issues that need a general house-ruling that applies to all casters.

[Demonic Spoon]

Speed modifiers to initiative sounds cool, but I worry about the effect on balance. In particular, it seems to reward dex-based fighting even more, which doesn't seem like it needs the boost.

[One Tin Soldier]

Yeah there's like 10, they don't offer much in the way of customization. I didn't figure there'd be prestige classes exactky but more paths or more specialized paths would be nice.

There's basically no character build options in the DMG at all. There's the Death domain cleric and the Oathbreaker paladin, and those are mostly designed for villains. I suppose there's magic items too, but I don't really count those as "build options" since you don't need them to be effective.

Funnily enough, player options are mostly limited to the PHB, and DM material is mostly limited to the DMG. Who'd've thunk it. :smallwink:


Another thing that is in the DMG, by the way, is the list of monsters by CR, as well as random encounter lists based on CR and environment.

[Shadow]

Maybe the spell's broken, but if it's broken to let a warlock do this then the spell itself has issues that need a general house-ruling that applies to all casters.

The spell isn't broken.
Certain *uses* of the spell are indeed broken.
If you choose your only 9th level spell to be a heightened create undead, you are invariably going to use it in a way that will be broken, or you wouldn't need your only available 9th level spell every single day to be a 9th level create undead.
Answer remains and will continue to remain a resounding No in my games.

[Demonic Spoon]

Yeah there's like 10, they don't offer much in the way of customization. I didn't figure there'd be prestige classes exactky but more paths or more specialized paths would be nice.


I don't know why you would expect that. That's PHB material. The DMG is material for DMs.

[Yoroichi]

What is the rule for square grid flanking, it is kinda unreadable!



Like my post was -_-

[Mirakk]

Agreed with Knaight. If you have proficiency in warhammer, you ought to have proficiency with the pick side of it, since it's an integral part of what it is and how it's used. Like with the halberd spike/spear; that's literally a key component of how you use one, and if you aren't proficient with the spike and the hook as well as the axehead, you're proficient with, say, Lochaber axe instead of halberd.

Oh I'd agree with you there, but there's no rules that would cover that sort of thing. However, I feel that the improvised weapon rules at least give someone a leg to stand on when arguing for that kind of utility. It's better than nothing.

[MaxWilson]

Because if you need it boosted to 9th level you're trying to make a pseudo-army.
If you're trying to build an army of undead then it follows that you're trying to break my campaign.

Five ghouls, or three wights, or two mummies, isn't much of an army. You'd be better off just taking Foresight and hiring a handful of NPCs soldiers.

A warlock who wants an army of undead will multiclass to Necromancer 6 in order to get Animate Dead for his 5th level slots. It is the difference between 5 ghouls doing normal damage and 384 skeletons doing 3000 points of damage per round. Ergo, any warlock who spends a 9th level spell slot on Create Undead is either (a) not trying to build an undead army, or (b) trying, but doing so incompetently.

[Invader]

I don't know why you would expect that. That's PHB material. The DMG is material for DMs.

Maybe because that's been the norm up to this point. I'd have no reason not to think that.

[Shadow]

Maybe because that's been the norm up to this point. I'd have no reason not to think that.

Actually, that was a trend which started in 3rd edition. In every edition prior to that the DMG was specifically for DM, and in point of fact, they even stated outright that players were not even supposed to LOOK AT and/or READ the DMG at all.
So until now we've had 2 editions where the DMG was only for DMs, and 2 editions where the DMG was available to players.
5e has, as advertised, placed the power back into the hands of the DM, and consequently it has also made the DMG materials directed solely towards DMs.
So now it's 3 for DMs only, and 2 for anyone, placing "the norm" squarely on the opposite side of where you seem to think it was.

[Daishain]

Actually, that was a trend which started in 3rd edition. In every edition prior to that the DMG was specifically for DM, and in point of fact, they even stated outright that players were not even supposed to LOOK AT and/or READ the DMG at all.
So until now we've had 2 editions where the DMG was only for DMs, and 2 editions where the DMG was available to players.
5e has, as advertised, placed the power back into the hands of the DM, and consequently it has also made the DMG materials directed solely towards DMs.
So now it's 3 for DMs only, and 2 for anyone, placing "the norm" squarely on the opposite side of where you seem to think it was.
Yeah, that really doesn't hold water anymore. DMs will often pass the torch on to get a bit of play in on the other side of the screen, a buttload of rules that people need to study and understand were for some reason only printed in the DMG, and regardless of how secretive a DM manages to keep things, players are eventually going to learn the details, even if only via observing him.

Then there's the fact that nearly every serious player out there is familiar with the DMG of at least one previous edition. The crucial differences between 3.5's DMG (which I know quite well) and the 5E version are going to mostly be in the form of rules and character minutia, which I will be figuring out via gameplay anyways if I don't just save time and ask for the details ahead of session. Crafting rules are a big example of this, although I suspect there will be some... negotiation for those to make them ever so slightly more reasonable.

[Shadow]

Clearly you don't understand what I just said.
He claimed that the "norm" was to include player options in the DMG.
I was showing him that the "norm" is exactly the reverse.
Players having knowledge of what's in the DMG, and players having access to options specifically for their use in the DMG are two different things.
The PHB is for players. The DMG is for DMs.
It's kind of right in the friggin titles. Player's Handbook vs Dungeon Master's Guide. One is for players, one is for the DM.

[Daishain]

Clearly you don't understand what I just said.
He claimed that the "norm" was to include player options in the DMG.
I was showing him that the "norm" is exactly the reverse.
Players having knowledge of what's in the DMG, and players having access to options specifically for their use in the DMG are two different things.
The PHB is for players. The DMG is for DMs.
It's kind of right in the friggin titles. Player's Handbook vs Dungeon Master's Guide. One is for players, one is for the DM.
And my point is that is what the books are supposedly intended for and their actual practical use are quite different things. The DM is the only one at the table that should definitely have the DMG, but it harms nothing for some of the players to have one as well, and said players are likely to need information in the DMG. In addition, a table plays more smoothly if everyone has a better understanding of how the game actually works, which, as mentioned before, is not entirely covered by the PHB.

EDIT: ...bloody hell, we're in agreement here aren't we? I'm just going to shut up and get back to my lab report

[JAL_1138]

Oh I'd agree with you there, but there's no rules that would cover that sort of thing. However, I feel that the improvised weapon rules at least give someone a leg to stand on when arguing for that kind of utility. It's better than nothing.

If the DM is running it close to RAW, like in organized play, yeah. Still, that you'd have to turn to the improvised weapon rules to employ something inherent and intended from the weapon design is problematic.

When I run it, I'm just going to go "Does it make sense from the weapon's basic design and common historical use? Then you're fine." Stab with longswords (The name still irks me, since they're closer to what D&D calls greatswords, whereas greatswords could be one-handed or hand-and-a-half) and halberds all you like, slash with shortswords if the blade type works for it, bludgeon someone with a spear-haft. Then again, I don't use the weapon list for anything but a vague pricing and damage-dice guideline; I'd rather throw the floodgates open for pretty much anything that actually saw use at some point in history. Goedendags, Bohemian Earspoons, poleaxes/pollaxes, Lochaber axes, Kriegsmessers, spada da lato...not all of them would do the same amount of damage for each type necessarily (e.g., the shamshir and talwar were not particularly meant to stab with, although it's not impossible), but still. I'd also let a heavy enough bladed weapon overcome a skeleton's resistance to anything but bludgeoning.

Edit: Well derp, they don't have that resistance anymore. Vulnerability to bludgeoning, immune to poison, no resistance to anything else.

[Person_Man]

I do like the DMG is telling you that yes, PCs are going to have magic items. Now I only have to suffer from the smugness of those boasting of running low magic games as if they're a superior, better way to play. Not talking about anyone in particular, just the general impression I get when someone advocates it or talks about their game as being low magic. That is not limited to 5E.

I'm genuinely confused by this. I thought the default for 5E assumed no magic items - that they'd just be an optional thing DMs could include if they wanted to - and that this would fix a lot of balance/player optimization problems.

Does the DMG say otherwise? The picture above seems to imply that magic items are part of the default game (as they were in every previous edition), and that DMs just choose between low/standard/high magic.

[S_Dalsgaard]

I'm genuinely confused by this. I thought the default for 5E assumed no magic items - that they'd just be an optional thing DMs could include if they wanted to - and that this would fix a lot of balance/player optimization problems.

Does the DMG say otherwise? The picture above seems to imply that magic items are part of the default game (as they were in every previous edition), and that DMs just choose between low/standard/high magic.

The assumption still is, that a campaign will run perfectly well without magic items (as long as the DM doesn't use a lot of monsters that can only be hit with magical weapons), but they have included magic items (and crafting rules) in the DMG, for those who want them in their campaign, including some pretty powerful ones. While some of these items may break bounded accuracy, it should be fairly easy for a DM to modify encounters as needed in a high-magic campaign.

[Human Paragon 3]

I'm genuinely confused by this. I thought the default for 5E assumed no magic items - that they'd just be an optional thing DMs could include if they wanted to - and that this would fix a lot of balance/player optimization problems.

Does the DMG say otherwise? The picture above seems to imply that magic items are part of the default game (as they were in every previous edition), and that DMs just choose between low/standard/high magic.

I have never heard of a D&D game that uses literally no magic items. I think it's safe to assume that even in lower magic games players should get their hands on at least one - they're just rarer. Magic items are one of the best rewards for players. You can give out a bunch and have fun, or you can use them sparingly and make them more "special" but I think you have to use them in your campaign.

I really like the way the DMG treats starting at higher level. Just grab X magic items. Much better than giving a huge gold piece purse and making the players go on a shopping spree. In 3.5 this was the most time consuming part of character creation for me, since there are so many items and so many different combinations of them I could buy with my 10,000 GP or whatever.

Just "pick a magic item" or "pick 2" makes it so much easier, and I think is well within the philosophy of "magic items are rare."

[Demonic Spoon]

I'm genuinely confused by this. I thought the default for 5E assumed no magic items - that they'd just be an optional thing DMs could include if they wanted to - and that this would fix a lot of balance/player optimization problems.

Does the DMG say otherwise? The picture above seems to imply that magic items are part of the default game (as they were in every previous edition), and that DMs just choose between low/standard/high magic.


The math assumes no particular magic items. Of course they were never going to remove magic items from D&D. However, a level 10 party without magic items will be capable of handling a moderate to hard XP-budgeted level 10 encounter. You could play a game, or part of a game, where the party doesn't have their magic items, and they won't be totally neutered.

The advantage of this approach is that in 3.x (and I assume 4), if the party was lacking in magic items, the DM would have to know to scale down encounters to fit the party. Given how creatures used to scale with CR and the lack of good rules for encounter building beyond CR made this difficult. This was especially true because the "expected" magic items generally offered flat stat boosts.

Now, even in a 'high magic' setting, your players aren't guaranteed to be running around with +3 to all their saves, +4 to their primary stat, and +3 to attack and damage by level 10. Additionally, the worst case scenario is that magic items make moderate encounters for your level not challenging, in which case it's easy to simply add more or more powerful monsters. The stat scaling with level/CR isn't such that having the party fight higher-CR creatures will immediately kill them.

[bloodshed343]

The math assumes no particular magic items. Of course they were never going to remove magic items from D&D. However, a level 10 party without magic items will be capable of handling a moderate to hard XP-budgeted level 10 encounter. You could play a game, or part of a game, where the party doesn't have their magic items, and they won't be totally neutered.

The advantage of this approach is that in 3.x (and I assume 4), if the party was lacking in magic items, the DM would have to know to scale down encounters to fit the party. Given how creatures used to scale with CR and the lack of good rules for encounter building beyond CR made this difficult. This was especially true because the "expected" magic items generally offered flat stat boosts.

Now, even in a 'high magic' setting, your players aren't guaranteed to be running around with +3 to all their saves, +4 to their primary stat, and +3 to attack and damage by level 10. Additionally, the worst case scenario is that magic items make moderate encounters for your level not challenging, in which case it's easy to simply add more or more powerful monsters. The stat scaling with level/CR isn't such that having the party fight higher-CR creatures will immediately kill them.

In 4e, the items didn't offer stat boosts. There were variant rules for "Inherent Bonuses" that let you play without magic items, or with lower level magic items. It was a pretty good system for magic items.

'Course 5e has a better system, since enhancement bonuses aren't built into the system math.

Also, 4e didn't have CR. It had an xp budget per level. A standard at-level encounter was 1 standard monster per pc. Elites cost 2, solos cost 4, minions cost 1/4.

This made solos more dangerous for small parties and minions more dangerous for large one, but it was a much better system for building encounters than 3.5.

'Course, bounded accuracy is even better.

[Person_Man]

The assumption still is, that a campaign will run perfectly well without magic items (as long as the DM doesn't use a lot of monsters that can only be hit with magical weapons), but they have included magic items (and crafting rules) in the DMG, for those who want them in their campaign, including some pretty powerful ones. While some of these items may break bounded accuracy, it should be fairly easy for a DM to modify encounters as needed in a high-magic campaign.

Thanks for your useful answer.

But I'm not sure how a DM can fix encounters if Bounded Accuracy is broken in a game where players can only Attune three magic items. For example, lets say a mid-high level Fighter gets (or chooses from his share of treasure) 3 magic items that give him powerful raw bonuses, but the Rogue gets/chooses 3 magic items that give him stand alone effects/spells. The Fighter could have +14 to hit and the Rogue could have +4. What's a DM supposed to do? Make the monster's AC +5 to +10ish higher and screw the Rogue, or leave it where it is and make it comically easy for the Fighter?

It's not a completely unsolvable problem. I DM'd many many mid-high level 2E/3.X/PF games and was able to make it fun by having the players make their characters together (ie, trying to keep them within the same optimization ballpark) and through trial and error. But I was just hoping that 5E would continue to not have this problem.

Also, it seems like the Barbarian's capstone ability is a lot less useful.

[Human Paragon 3]

Thanks for your useful answer.

But I'm not sure how a DM can fix encounters if Bounded Accuracy is broken in a game where players can only Attune three magic items. For example, lets say a mid-high level Fighter gets (or chooses from his share of treasure) 3 magic items that give him powerful raw bonuses, but the Rogue gets/chooses 3 magic items that give him stand alone effects/spells. The Fighter could have +14 to hit and the Rogue could have +4. What's a DM supposed to do? Make the monster's AC +5 to +10ish higher and screw the Rogue, or leave it where it is and make it comically easy for the Fighter?

It's not a completely unsolvable problem. I DM'd many many mid-high level 2E/3.X/PF games and was able to make it fun by having the players make their characters together (ie, trying to keep them within the same optimization ballpark) and through trial and error. But I was just hoping that 5E would continue to not have this problem.

Also, it seems like the Barbarian's capstone ability is a lot less useful.

I don't believe the disparity you posted is possible, even with 3 magic items.

The stat boost items in 5e don't give you a flat bonus to your attribute, they set them to 19, so it's never better than strictly leveling. It's useful if your 20 STR fighter also wants DEX 19 (very nice in fact), but it doesn't break Bounded Accuracy.

A 10th level fighter should have a +9 or 10 at most to hit, and the rogue should be in that ball park unless he dumped STR and DEX for some weird reason even if he did decide to take no combat items at all.

Even at level 20, to-hit bonuses shouldn't top more than 15 (6 prof +5 attribute +3 magic weapon +1 misc???).

[mr_odd]

Also, players can only get what the DM gives out. As stated before, 5e puts the power back in the DM's hands. Players shouldn't expect to get a particular magic item, because they don't even know if it exists.

[pwykersotz]

I don't believe the disparity you posted is possible, even with 3 magic items.

The stat boost items in 5e don't give you a flat bonus to your attribute, they set them to 19, so it's never better than strictly leveling. It's useful if your 20 STR fighter also wants DEX 19 (very nice in fact), but it doesn't break Bounded Accuracy.

A 10th level fighter should have a +9 or 10 at most to hit, and the rogue should be in that ball park unless he dumped STR and DEX for some weird reason even if he did decide to take no combat items at all.

Even at level 20, to-hit bonuses shouldn't top more than 15 (6 prof +5 attribute +3 magic weapon +1 misc???).

Strength would be +9 because of the top end Belt, which means the difference could be split by as much as 7 if one person has absolutely no magic items versus another having syncergistic ones.

Person_Man, I would just let the fighter hit "comically easily" if those are your options. Using Tiamat's 25 AC as an example point, The Rogue hits at +11, so needs a 14 or better. The fighter hits at +18, so needs a 7 or better. A large difference to be sure, but still workable.

[Demonic Spoon]

Isn't the strength one listed as legendary? Can you start with such an item even in high-magic games per the DMG?

That seems like the kind of item you'd hand out to your party at level 20 before they went off to do something like kill a god. And if you were handing out such an item to one player and nothing comparable to another, then you're being a bad DM.

[Knaight]

On the magic items table - it doesn't list no magic items, but it would be completely pointless to do so. The number of magic items is just always zero there, no table is necessary for that.

[Human Paragon 3]

Oh, I didn't realize there was a legendary item that gave you 28 STR. That's pretty nuts, and not something I would allow lightly into my campaign. Are there graduated ones below it that set your str to, say, 24?

[Daishain]

Oh, I didn't realize there was a legendary item that gave you 28 STR. That's pretty nuts, and not something I would allow lightly into my campaign. Are there graduated ones below it that set your str to, say, 24?
Yes, in fact there's one for each variety of giant. I think there's some at 23 and 25 for instance though I'm not 100% sure there.

[MaxWilson]

Isn't the strength one listed as legendary? Can you start with such an item even in high-magic games per the DMG?

Yes, it's legendary. I'm AFB but based on the rarity of +3 Plate Armor (1 in 240 campaigns that run from 1st to 20th level will ever roll a set of +3 Plate Armor on the magic tables) I'm guessing that the Belt of Storm Giant Strength is not going to be game-breakingly common either.

This is 2nd edition-style treasure (and maybe 1st), where you are largely reliant on the vagaries of random dice rolls and must find a way to make your Cloak of the Arachnid (very rare) useful because trading it in for a set of +2 Plate Armor (very rare) simply isn't an option. (Believe me, a Cloak of the Arachnid can be plenty cool!) It's not 3rd edition where magic item selection was apparently part of the metagame.

[Person_Man]

I don't believe the disparity you posted is possible, even with 3 magic items.

So I don't have the 5E DMG yet. But based on my experience with every previous edition and with the 5E rules so far, my current thought process is:

1) Magic items that can boost an Ability Scores above 20 exist (up to +9 right now).
2) Magic weapons that provide bonuses exist (up to +3 right now).
3) Spells like Bless (+1d4) that provide bonuses exist.
4) Magic items that duplicate spells exist. (Though I'm not sure if a Wand of Bless exists yet).
5) There will be supplementary books, which produce more variations and permutations of the above.
6) Some players optimize bonuses. Others don't.
7) Players can only Attune three powerful magic items. (Weaker ones are "free" but probably won't provide stackable bonuses).
8) When starting a mid-high level game, some DMs choose to allow players to choose their own magic items. And even if they don't don't, if the DM chooses to carefully allocate magic items to a party over the coarse of a normal long running campaign, its possible for one player to take items that provide numerical bonuses while another player takes magic items that don't. (Presumably by mutual consent or by winning Rock/Paper/Scissors contests when they find treasure. This issue is particularly difficult to deal with if you have a large party).
9) Some DMs are not highly experienced, and no one is highly experienced in 5E because it hasn't existed for very long. So it would be easy for a DM to overlook this issue until after giving out a bunch of magic items.


Again, I'm not saying that this is an unsolvable problem, nor is it currently as bad as it used to be in previous editions. Its an unfortunate problem that I incorrectly thought was solved by Bounded Accuracy, and I think the problem will get worse as more splat comes out. Of course, I was wrong before, so its probable that I'll be wrong again.


To use an analogy, I think that the core 5E books are similar to the American Constitution. Mearls wrote the Constitution (core 5E books) in an attempt to improve upon the previous messes of the British Monarchy, Revolution, and Articles of Confederation (the edition wars). And it is better (in my opinion, at least). The Constitution has many parts that limit the powers of the Federal government (Bounded Accuracy, Concentration, Attunement, etc). But it also includes an open ended Necessary and Proper and Commerce clauses (spells and magic items). If the elected officials (the DM) respect the intended purpose of the Constitution and limit the use of their own powers, then everything works fine. But if elected officials intentionally or unintentionally abuse the open ended clauses (too many high level spells and magic items) and keep adding laws (splat books), it basically negates the rest of the Constitution (replicating the problems of the previous editions in the new one).


Note: The above was not meant as a political statement and is definitely not meant to start any kind of discussion or debate about the Constitution. Its meant for illustrative purposes only.

[Demonic Spoon]

So I don't have the 5E DMG yet. But based on my experience with every previous edition and with the 5E rules so far, my current thought process is:...


Note, that I don't have the DMG yet either:

1. I would bet that any wands of concentration spells will have similar built in limits, such as requiring concentration even if cast from a wand. Anything else would fundamentally break bounded accuracy.

2. An individual +1 on an item is valued extremely highly. The guidelines in the DMG (as they've been described by people in this thread, at least) suggest that if a DM hands out a whole bunch of +3/legendary items to his players, even if they're handed out to the whole party and one person hoards them, the DM has gone way over and above what the guidelines in the book suggest.

3. By the very nature of magic items, if you let players pick and choose from a wide variety of them, there will be ways to optimize for maximum effectiveness . There is no way to have meaningful magic items otherwise.

In summary, a DM that uses either the default 5e rules (no purchased magic items) or follows the written guidelines for handing them out will never run into this problem. I doubt a newbie DM would make this mistake; a newbie DM is likely to follow the guidelines in the DMG closely.

The biggest risk of mistakes come from experienced 3.5/4.0 DMs who haven't yet grown to understand 5e's design philosophy.

[Oscredwin]

Note, that I don't have the DMG yet either:

1. I would bet that any wands of concentration spells will have similar built in limits, such as requiring concentration even if cast from a wand. Anything else would fundamentally break bounded accuracy.

2. An individual +1 on an item is valued extremely highly. The guidelines in the DMG (as they've been described by people in this thread, at least) suggest that if a DM hands out a whole bunch of +3/legendary items to his players, even if they're handed out to the whole party and one person hoards them, the DM has gone way over and above what the guidelines in the book suggest.

3. By the very nature of magic items, if you let players pick and choose from a wide variety of them, there will be ways to optimize for maximum effectiveness . There is no way to have meaningful magic items otherwise.

In summary, a DM that uses either the default 5e rules (no purchased magic items) or follows the written guidelines for handing them out will never run into this problem. I doubt a newbie DM would make this mistake; a newbie DM is likely to follow the guidelines in the DMG closely.

The biggest risk of mistakes come from experienced 3.5/4.0 DMs who haven't yet grown to understand 5e's design philosophy.

Playing second edition at 8 years old with my friends, I had a level 3 wizard with a Staff of the Magi. Sometimes the guidelines aren't followed and things will just go pear shaped. Things are also bad if, in 4E, you give a level 2 Fighter something that would be over wealth for a 30th level fighter.

The Uber-Fighter described in this thread is the result of the party going on 3 quests to equip them with, literally, the most powerful magic in the game, is being buffed with the concentration slots their partymates, and is very likely at the end of the campaign. As someone who learned to optimize with 3.X, this is ... not so much abuse as how I would expect a party to get ready to fight Tiamat A god, who the fighter, equipped with the most powerful magic in the world, still misses 30% of the time. The Rogue, with a +1d6 fire damage magic bow and no other buffs (so a +11 to hit), hits Tiamat 35% of the time (bless or other to hit buffs would likely hit both of them equally). They are playing the same game, can be in the same fight, and have fun together (although it would be helpful to give the rogue some poison that works on her or a better bow or something).

I'm not seeing the problem. Bounded accuracy doesn't mean everyone hits on the same number + or - 2, it means no player is pushed of the RNG which seems to hold true here.