# People That Have Actually Read the DMG: What Optional Rule(s) Do You Want To Get Expanded In One D&D?



## Levistus's_Leviathan (Oct 10, 2022)

As we all know, no one reads the D&D 5e Dungeon Master's Guide. However, for the few people on this site that have, what optional parts of it do you think should be expanded upon in the One D&D playtest? 

By "expanded", I mean given heavy revisions the same way that Inspiration and Exhaustion have been revised in the current playtest documents. 

There are 3 optional rules in the DMG that currently come to mind:

*The Loyalty Score:* Found in Chapter 4 of the DMG, the Loyalty Score is a way for the DM to keep track of how loyal party-member NPCs are to the party. Currently, it's pretty bare-bones and has only been used in one official adventure before (Out of the Abyss), so I think revising it and making the rules more important could help in future official adventures. 
*Proficiency Dice: *I like the idea of Proficiency Dice. I've never used it, because I don't think my players would like it, but I like the idea of it. However, revising Proficiency Dice to apply only in certain situations could help make it be used more frequently. 
*Flanking:* Currently, flanking gives people that attack a flanked target advantage on the attack roll, which is probably too effective. If revised to be a bonus to hit (maybe a d4 or +1 per flanking creature), then it might be used more, adding more strategy to D&D 5e combat. 
What about you? What other optional rules do you think can/should be revised and/or expanded? Do you have any thoughts on the optional rules I listed and possible revisions/expansions for them?


----------



## doctorbadwolf (Oct 10, 2022)

Flanking could give an extra weapon die, or rather an extra roll of your weapon’s damage dice. This would make it a beefier bonus for strength PCs with bigger weapons. 

I want a lot more special actions. Trip, Overrun, etc, very cool. Expand on it, and put it in the PHB. 

Minor Traits (for magic items). Things like “Temperate: you ignore extreme weather” are very fun and good. Each effect should be a common magic item. 

Pie in the sky: use the damage by spell level chart to make a system for sorcerers to make thier own combat spells on the fly. Make the table more in depth.


----------



## Benjamin Olson (Oct 10, 2022)

Flanking is the big one because that is the one that most tables I've played at either use or would use if the rules were better. Basically most people I've played with seem to feel like there should be some sort of flanking bonus, and those who don't use the DMG advantage from flanking system avoid it because it's bad (trivializing advantage, which is plugged into too many other features), not because they would not like to have a flanking system of some sort. Personally I add a d4. It seems simple enough, is not nearly as good as advantage, but stacks with advantage.

However I think an improved flanking rule should not be in the ghetto of DMG optional systems, it should just be part of the base game because I think most people would want to play with it. I think the basic nature of DMG optional rules is "ideas we liked but couldn't nail down well enough to be satisfied with and decided the base game could work without", and I'm okay with that when it happens, but rules ending up there is a sign of failure. If they come up with something that works well and isn't overly complicated it should be in the base game.


----------



## Raith5 (Oct 10, 2022)

I am happy with flanking only applying to Rogues.

In a similar vein would like to see marking and some other tactics expanded as maneuvers or stances for Fighters and Paladins.


----------



## tetrasodium (Oct 10, 2022)

Levistus's_Leviathan said:


> As we all know, no one reads the D&D 5e Dungeon Master's Guide. However, for the few people on this site that have, what optional parts of it do you think should be expanded upon in the One D&D playtest?
> 
> By "expanded", I mean given heavy revisions the same way that Inspiration and Exhaustion have been revised in the current playtest documents.
> 
> ...



I used proficiency dice for a couple campaigns & they worked well after the initial breaking in period & allowed some neat stuff like magic items that make say 1=2 or 1 & 2=3 on the proficiency die for a thing to raise the average without raising the ceiling.  I wouldn't mind them being default or a PHB variant to lower the bar for a gm wanting to use a rather innocuous rule.  Most of the resistance was one or two players who got fussy because it was hard to use them in ddb even though they really wanted to use ddb instead of physical stuff.

Flanking & facing rules are almost written as if the author of those rules wanted to make sure nobody tried to use badwrongfun grid combat rather than ToTM, they could use massive improvements

I'd like to see body slots+explained slot affinities & bonus types become an optional rule for use alongside attunement slots.


----------



## CleverNickName (Oct 10, 2022)

*Spell Points*


----------



## Benjamin Olson (Oct 10, 2022)

tetrasodium said:


> I used proficiency dice for a couple campaigns & they worked well after the initial breaking in period & allowed some neat stuff like magic items that make say 1=2 or 1 & 2=3 on the proficiency die for a thing to raise the average without raising the ceiling. I wouldn't mind them being default or a PHB variant to lower the bar for a gm wanting to use a rather innocuous rule. Most of the resistance was one or two players who got fussy because it was hard to use them in ddb even though they really wanted to use ddb instead of physical stuff.



Given that everything in 5.5 will probably be some variation of "give a number of allies equal to your proficiency bonus a bonus equal to your proficiency bonus proficiency bonus times per day", it will probably feel like a pretty weird system to use proficiency dice in. The only thing you won't be using your proficiency bonus for is actual proficiency.


----------



## Twiggly the Gnome (Oct 10, 2022)

Bloodied (pg 248) Morale (pg 273) as part of a comprehensive fight or flight system.


----------



## Horwath (Oct 10, 2022)

CleverNickName said:


> *Spell Points*



this.

All casters with spells known (to limit versatility) and spell points as default.

Wizard can start with ritual caster feat.


----------



## Li Shenron (Oct 10, 2022)

Levistus's_Leviathan said:


> By "expanded", I mean given heavy revisions the same way that Inspiration and Exhaustion have been revised in the current playtest documents.



"Expanded" in the same way as Inspiration means *made mandatory*. That's a step backward for me even if they "expand" something I personally like.


----------



## Levistus's_Leviathan (Oct 10, 2022)

Li Shenron said:


> "Expanded" in the same way as Inspiration means *made mandatory*. That's a step backward for me even if they "expand" something I personally like.



This isn't the thread to complain about OneD&D inspiration. If you don't like it, please take it to another thread.


----------



## UngeheuerLich (Oct 10, 2022)

Round by round initiative.
Massive damage.
Cleave
Healing/Rest options. 

I always want to use the round by round initiative for the forst turn of combat. With the new surprise rules, that now seems actually as if it could work.

I already use massive damage vs mooks. If an attack deals 10+ damage and more than half hp, I make con saves for my enemies. Makes combat a bit more fun.
Same for one hit melee kills that can cleave. Makes melee with big weapons more attractive I use a slightly modified version, that allows to cleave if you deal max target damage in one hit. They don't have to have full hp (as it is stated i the rules).

Healing/Rest options should be right in the PHB.


----------



## AnotherGuy (Oct 10, 2022)

Guidance on Plot Points 
Tried it once and one of the players tried to push the boundaries with it much to the rest of the table's dislike.
After that I nixed the idea.


----------



## Azzy (Oct 10, 2022)

More martial maneuvers.

Revised and expanded morale.


----------



## Gorck (Oct 10, 2022)

I used to love playing Rogues in 3.x, so when I first started playing 5e I used the optional *Flanking *and *Tumble *rules.  But I quickly realized they weren't necessary.  With the 5e Sneak Attack rules, Rogues no longer needed to be flanking.  And with 5e's movement rules, I no longer needed to tumble into flanking position.

But 2 optional rules that I do like using are the *Hitting Cover* and *Cleave *rules on page 272.  Hitting Cover leads to iconic hostage situations where you have to decide whether you want to lay down your weapons or try to snipe the person holding the hostage without damaging the hostage.  Cleave just replaces the old 3.x feat and makes my Greataxe wielding Barbarian that much cooler.  It also makes battles with many low-level minions go much quicker.


----------



## delericho (Oct 10, 2022)

The sections on Madness and the Sanity Score probably require revision.

Other than that, I don't have a specific list, except to note that I'd rather they have fewer, but better detailed, options than the current large set of fairly vague options. That is, pick any few, but expand those.

(Of course, even better would be to expand _all_ the options. But given likely page counts, that's probably impractical.)


----------



## Amrûnril (Oct 10, 2022)

I'd like to see an improved version of lingering wounds. For tables that want to explore this, there should be the possibility of a middle ground between injuries that are instantly cured by basic healing magic and injuries that cause permanent disability.


----------



## Ruin Explorer (Oct 10, 2022)

I honestly think most of the optional rules in 5E should just be outright deleted or re-written from the ground-up, rather than "expanded upon", but maybe re-written counts? Like, let's go through the DMG:

1) Proficiency Dice - delete. Waste of everyone's time that makes the game work less well.

Before this gets argued, let me just lay something out: I think the DMG should _set a good example to DMs_ about optional rules and house rules.

That means the DMG should not include rules that are just "for the lolz", which don't make the game better, nor change it to some other distinct playstyle, that just mess with the mechanics "just becuz". And Proficiency Dice are 100% "just becuz". There's no good mechanical case for them in 5E.

2) Skill Variants - Expand.

I know what I just said, but if there was one area to expand on, and make some mini-rules sets _with examples_ for, this would be it. This section suffers badly from a lack of examples.

3) Hero Points - Fold into Inspiration or just delete.

4) Honor - For god's sake delete, this is borderline racist, esp. with the orientalist art.

5) Sanity - This is literally a terrible mechanic which achieves almost exactly the opposite of the stated goal and a great example of how rushed the DMG was and it's kind of not great conceptually ("seeing weird stuff _makes you_ nuts" leads to a lot of problematic tropes). Replace with some kind of Stress mechanic or something.

6) Fear/Horror - Expand or delete. Pick one.

7) Healing options - ALL the healing options through the DMG and so on need to be unified in a single place, and both re-written and expanded and on top of that, they need to be explained in a lot more detail re: consequences etc. Essentially Expand but you need to re-write first! The "healing surges" they have here are an insult to the concept - I wrote a version that made way more sense and worked more like the concept in like 20 minute a few months back (can dig up if wanted).

8) Rest variants - Unify with healing options, they shouldn't be separated. Also completely re-write both. And/or add in two "middle ground" options.

9) Firearms - Delete. I know some will disagree. I don't care. Guns that aren't the most very basic arquebuses and the like work really badly in 5E, and cause all sort of "hmmmmm" situations unless they're solely for a "gunslinger"-type class.

10) Explosives - Expand. Perverse? Me? But I genuinely think explosives, as well as Greek Fire and Acid can work really well in D&D, as consumables rather than regularly-used weapons. I'd like to see this done a lot better, and Greek Fire/Acid made into something that scales, potentially.

11) Alien Tech - Delete. Leave it for a sourcebook/adventure. Save the space.

12) Plot Points - Expand and formalize. But don't use use the existing waffle, which is barely "rules" at all.

13) Initiative variants - Fine except delete Speed Factor. That's a huge amount of text for an optional rule I've never even HEARD of being used, even from you guys who LOVE the most obscure option rules possible. Ditch it. There's a limited page count people.

14) Climb onto a bigger creature - EXPAAAAAAND!!! Come on! We could have something awesome here. DO IT! Either that or delete it from the DMG and do it as proper optional rules in a later book.

15) Disarm - Should not be an optional rule, and should not be terrible.

16) Mark - I'm a 4E fan but delete this. It's just clumsy and falls totally between two stools. A sad, pointless relic of a modular 5E that never materialized and that 1D&D won't be.

17) Overrun/Shove Aside/Tumble - De-optionalize this stuff. Put it in the PHB. It doesn't significantly complicate combat and does add options.

18) Hitting cover - It's fine.

19) Cleaving - It's fine but tempted to say de-optionalize or delete so it can become a class Feature or even a Warrior Feature.

20) Injuries - Hmmm, like delete and re-write with something that is both expanded and much more compatible with D&D's rules. It's trash. I know people who use injury rules in their game. Literally none of them use these rules nor variants of them.

21) Massive damage - De-optionalize.

22) Morale - Replace with the approach that World Without Number takes, which works on a much broader variety of creatures, and actually work into the system. So Expand, I guess?

That's the main optional rules section so enough for now.

More that I think should be expanded than I remembered, I have to admit. A lot of these are so bad I'd forgotten them entirely - but the basic concept needs rules. It just doesn't need these terrible rules.


----------



## Li Shenron (Oct 10, 2022)

Levistus's_Leviathan said:


> This isn't the thread to complain about OneD&D inspiration. If you don't like it, please take it to another thread



No no, I complain specifically about making anything more mandatory than it currently is, because the "expanding" of those two examples you brought up meant exactly to hook them into fundamental parts of the game (races, basic d20 rolls, rests) in a way that makes it a lot more difficult for a DM to ignore or control.

I am happy too if the "expand" for example the *flanking* rules, or (to make a proposal of my own) the *chase* rules.

I am not happy if by doing so, they make both of them more mandatory, even if I actually already use them. 

But you said you meant "the same way" as those two examples, that's why it raised my alarm.


----------



## tetrasodium (Oct 10, 2022)

Ruin Explorer said:


> I honestly think most of the optional rules in 5E should just be outright deleted or re-written from the ground-up, rather than "expanded upon", but maybe re-written counts? Like, let's go through the DMG:
> 
> 1) Proficiency Dice - delete. Waste of everyone's time that makes the game work less well.
> 
> ...



Although I used the proficiency dice & liked the results I very much agree with the general thrust of this.  At the table proficiency dice played out more like a code revision snuck past an editor to partially fix the way PCs destroy the math of  bounded accuracy that the whole game is designed around rather than a variant style of gameplay.


----------



## Grantypants (Oct 10, 2022)

I like the idea of proficiency bonus being a die value rather than a set bonus, but in play it seems to slow down the game as you have more numbers to add every time.


----------



## doctorbadwolf (Oct 10, 2022)

Gorck said:


> I used to love playing Rogues in 3.x, so when I first started playing 5e I used the optional *Flanking *and *Tumble *rules.  But I quickly realized they weren't necessary.  With the 5e Sneak Attack rules, Rogues no longer needed to be flanking.  And with 5e's movement rules, I no longer needed to tumble into flanking position.
> 
> But 2 optional rules that I do like using are the *Hitting Cover* and *Cleave *rules on page 272.  Hitting Cover leads to iconic hostage situations where you have to decide whether you want to lay down your weapons or try to snipe the person holding the hostage without damaging the hostage.  Cleave just replaces the old 3.x feat and makes my Greataxe wielding Barbarian that much cooler.  It also makes battles with many low-level minions go much quicker.



The Cleave rules are fun, but I don’t require that subsequent target to be undamaged. Definitely worth expanding on. 


Twiggly the Gnome said:


> Bloodied (pg 248) Morale (pg 273) as part of a comprehensive fight or flight system.



I’d love to see those expanded beyond fight or flight rules.


----------



## Ruin Explorer (Oct 10, 2022)

Grantypants said:


> I like the idea of proficiency bonus being a die value rather than a set bonus, but in play it seems to slow down the game as you have more numbers to add every time.



I think a lot of people like the idea. I like the _idea_, for example! But I liked the idea of the dice mechanic in Earthdawn! The practice? Not so much.

In practice Proficiency Dice does two major things:

1) It slows the game down by a noticeable amount.

2) It nukes Bounded Accuracy from orbit as @tetrasodium points out.

It gets particularly hilarious with stuff like Expertise, where you're rolling two dice! At level 5, for example, when you're rolling 2d6 for Expertise, you can get anywhere between +2, so the same as an _Level 1_ character _without_ Expertise and +12, the same as Level 17 character with Expertise. That only gets worse as things go on. At 13 you're going between +2 (still!) and +20, which is like 60% higher than you could ever see even with Expertise at any level! It's adding more RNG into a game which already has an excessive RNG problem thanks to using d20s.

It just doesn't benefit the game, and illustrates a pernicious and unhelpful kind of house-rule-making that some DMs insist on engaging in, which is changing rules because they think it's cool to change rules, without actually understanding what they're doing. That should not be the sort of optional rule that's in the DMG and that people might try to emulate.


----------



## Twiggly the Gnome (Oct 10, 2022)

doctorbadwolf said:


> I’d love to see those expanded beyond fight or flight rules.



Fair. My concern was that bloodied and morale have a natural interaction in a fight or flight situation.


----------



## doctorbadwolf (Oct 10, 2022)

Twiggly the Gnome said:


> Fair. My concern was that bloodied and morale have a natural interaction in a fight or flight situation.



Absolutely. Bloodied just has so many ways it could turn dials in the system very intuitively, from “when bloodied, the Gnoll reaver gains THP and deals 1d10 extra damage on a successful melee weapon attack while it has those THP” to gating certain kinds of healing behind being bloodied (or behind a certain level of morale, for that matter). 

I think you could use the class groups and stuff like bloodied to do cool stuff like “When a Warrior is bloodied, they can use a reaction to make one weapon attack against a target they can see. They regain this when they roll initiative or complete a short or long rest.”


----------



## TheSword (Oct 10, 2022)

Lingering injuries would be my strong preference. Expanded to be interesting and long lasting.

Incurred when dropping to 0 hp, with conditions attached and probably a number of exhaustion levels. With methods of removing over time or with magic.


----------



## Marandahir (Oct 16, 2022)

Spellpoints, but only for Sorcerers. Merge it with Sorcery Points into a single larger pool, and Sorcerers can choose to spend it on more spells per day or on altering a fewer number of spells per day.


----------



## tetrasodium (Oct 16, 2022)

Marandahir said:


> Spellpoints, but only for Sorcerers. Merge it with Sorcery Points into a single larger pool, and Sorcerers can choose to spend it on more spells per day or on altering a fewer number of spells per day.



Spell points is a mess in 5e because slot based casters mostly stop getting slots after the first for higher level slots while a handful of low level "iconic" spells punch way above what their slot levels & very low spell point costs justify.  5.5/6e will need to do a lot better there


----------



## Yaarel (Oct 16, 2022)

In the DMs Guide I want more development of optional abilities. It gives examples such as Honor and Sanity being new abilities.

I want Athletics and Perception as new abilities for a total of eight abilities.

• Strength / Constitution
• Dexterity / Athletics
• Intelligence / Perception
• Charisma / Wisdom

In this eightsome, there are four main saving throws: Constitution (Fortitude), Athletics (Reflex), Perception (!), and Wisdom (Will).

Perception is the defacto saving throw versus hiddenness, invisibility, and noticing any sensory flaws in disguises and illusions.

Athletics is mobility and bodily agily, including dodge and the AC bonus, it combines the inseparable Athletics jump/climb and Acrobatics fall/balance into a single swashbuckling ability score.

Meanwhile Dexterity continues to include manual dexterity Slight of Hand and cautious sensitive movements like Stealth, plus weapons that require a steady hand and precise aim, such as range weapons and finesse weapons.

(By the way, in this context, Charisma handles Honor and Wisdom handles Sanity.)

It takes some adjustment in the standard formating to make it practible to add these two abilities.


----------



## Yaarel (Oct 16, 2022)

Marandahir said:


> Spellpoints, but only for Sorcerers. Merge it with Sorcery Points into a single larger pool, and Sorcerers can choose to spend it on more spells per day or on altering a fewer number of spells per day.



I am impressed with how well points per Short Rest balances.

The basic idea is, the mage gains a number of spell points equal to the fullcaster level + 1. The cost of any spell equals its slot level.

For example:

A level 5 Wizard has a spell pool equal to 6 points ( = level + 1 points).

The Wizard can use these points to cast two _Fireballs_ (3rd slot x 2 = 6 point cost), or cast one of each _Fireball_, _Invisibility_, and _Magic Missile_ (3rd slot + 2nd slot + 1st slot = 6 point cost).

When the pool depletes a Short or Long Rest can refresh it back to the maximum of 6 points.



This set up is amazingly balanced. It even works for the highest slot levels of 6th, 7th, 8th, and 9th.

It should probably the standard mechanics for any character that uses spell points, regardless of class.


----------



## pnewman (Oct 16, 2022)

As written the variant rule about playing on a grid only allows for square grids. I would like to see an option for hex grid maps as well.


----------



## Haplo781 (Oct 16, 2022)

Healing surges.

Hit dice suck.


----------



## Gorck (Oct 16, 2022)

Yaarel said:


> I am impressed with how well points per Short Rest balances.
> 
> The basic idea is, the mage gains a number of spell points equal to the fullcaster level + 1. The cost of any spell equals its slot level.
> 
> ...



Normally, a 17th level Wizard can cast 1 9th level spell _per day_.  Unless I’m missing something, with your method, a 17th level Wizard would be able to cast 2 9th level spells _per Short Rest.  _Are you sure that’s balanced?


----------



## Yaarel (Oct 16, 2022)

Gorck said:


> Normally, a 17th level Wizard can cast 1 9th level spell _per day_.  Unless I’m missing something, with your method, a 17th level Wizard would be able to cast 2 9th level spells _per Short Rest._



Yeah. But. The level 17th level Wizard using these spell slots will never be able to cast a 9th-slot spell, an 8th-slot spell, a 7th-slot spell, a 6th-slot spell, two 5th-slot spells, three 4th-slot spells, and three 3rd-slot spells DURING THE SAME COMBAT ENCOUNTER!

If the Wizard depletes all the spell points on only two spells, the Wizard will be vulnerable to any encounters afterward, and gaining a 1-hour Short Rest may or may not be easy.

The genius of the Short Rest spell pool is, it keeps the size of spell pool small thereby making "broken" "novas" impossible.


----------



## Yaarel (Oct 16, 2022)

I became aware of the Short Rest spell point system when looking into third-party Psion classes. (Both LaserLlama and KibblesTasty.)

Initially, I strongly opposed psionics using spell points because I want normal D&D mechanics − nothing fringe or redundant.

But looking into the Short Rest spell points I am amazed by how solid it is. Every D&D class should be using these Short Rest spell points! It should be the "normal" D&D mechanics.


----------



## MGibster (Oct 16, 2022)

After a certain point, the accumulation of gold in 5th edition was superfluous as there just wasn't a lot to spend it on.  I'd like to see them expand their ideas for alternative rewards for player characters that aren't based on treasure.  Alternatively, I'd like more ideas on what PCs could do with all that treasure.


----------



## Yaarel (Oct 17, 2022)

Regarding distances. I want all distances standardized to:

_Distance Upto: Range Type_
• 10 feet (3 m): *Melee */ Reach
• 30 feet (10 m): *Near */ Close / Move / Throw
• 100 feet (30 m): Far / Distant
• 300 feet (100 m): Mid Range / Bowshot
• 1000 feet (300 m): Long Range (bowshot at disadvantage)

Anything beyond 30 feet is Far and beyond 1000 feet is Remote.

The main purpose of simplifying and standardizing distances is for theater of the mind. In this case, the only ranges that matter are Melee and Near during combat encounters. Things are either within a Move or Throw or not. But the longer ranges occasionally happen when seeing or interacting with things in the distance.

Most spells have a range of about 100 feet.

A bow is reliable enough upto 300 feet (a city block or a football field).


----------



## The Myopic Sniper (Oct 17, 2022)

I would prefer it if they just did not have any optional rules in the DMG and focused the DMG on all the tools that DMs need to run the game as well as instructions on how to DM.  If it is important enough to have an optional rule to support a setting, place that in the core book for that setting. Otherwise, just come up with standard rules for those situations or create feats for players who really like the playstyle that the optional rules create.


----------



## Marandahir (Oct 17, 2022)

Yaarel said:


> Yeah. But. The level 17th level Wizard using these spell slots will never be able to cast a 9th-slot spell, an 8th-slot spell, a 7th-slot spell, a 6th-slot spell, two 5th-slot spells, three 4th-slot spells, and three 3rd-slot spells DURING THE SAME COMBAT ENCOUNTER!
> 
> If the Wizard depletes all the spell points on only two spells, the Wizard will be vulnerable to any encounters afterward, and gaining a 1-hour Short Rest may or may not be easy.
> 
> The genius of the Short Rest spell pool is, it keeps the size of spell pool small thereby making "broken" "novas" impossible.



Are you sure rests aren't that easy to get?

My experience is that the party rests the amount of times = to the loudest member of the party who nova'd their abilities out. We want to disinsentivise the 5MWD. This just turns it into the 5-Minute-Work-Hour, thus making it far easier to recharge without losing everything (1 hour is far easier to rest thoroughly than 6).


----------



## Yaarel (Oct 17, 2022)

Marandahir said:


> Are you sure rests aren't that easy to get?
> 
> My experience is that the party rests the amount of times = to the loudest member of the party who nova'd their abilities out. We want to disinsentivise the 5MWD. This just turns it into the 5-Minute-Work-Hour, thus making it far easier to recharge without losing everything (1 hour is far easier to rest thoroughly than 6).



We can compare the 5e Warlock, with regard to Short Rest mechanics.

The spell point system converts the Warlock chassis into spell points. The difference is the Warlock progression comes in big lumps at each slot increase, whereas the spell point system progression increments smoothly increasing at 1 point at each new level. Overall the difference between the Short Rest slots and the level+1 Short Rest points is a wash.

In all the years of 5e, I dont recall anyone complaining that the Sorcerer spellcasting is too powerful. I only hear it isnt enough for some player preferences. Moreover, I hear Warlock players complain they have a difficult time convincing other players to rest − tho that might change if Wizard and other casters are Short-Resting too because of using the spell point system.

Going from my experience, the 1-hour Short Rest is only possible if there are no nearby threats − in other words, there is a natural narrative pause in the adventure, when an 8-hour Long Rest is just as easy.

In sum, the Short Rest spell pool balances solidly. We can the see the Warlock perform when effectively maximizing the expenditure for each spell. The main difference is, the spell points allow the option of dividing the maximal slot into several lesser spells. The Short Rest spell point chassis balances remarkably.


----------



## CleverNickName (Oct 18, 2022)

I guess my experience with Proficiency Dice is different.

That optional rule hasn't slowed our game down at all.  But that's because we play virtually on Roll20, and Proficiency Dice is an option you toggle on in the game setup menu.  Once it's toggled on, nobody ever has to think about it again--it's rolled automatically in the background.  After 3 or 4 gaming sessions, my players and I had forgotten that we agreed to use them.

I can't really say that it has _broken_ bounded accuracy either...certainly not "nuking it from orbit," as some have suggested.  The game feels more swingy now, and skill checks and attack rolls are somewhat less predictable.  Not by a _lot, _though...it didn't ruin the game.  Like I said, after 3 or 4 gaming sessions we had forgotten they were there.


----------



## tetrasodium (Oct 18, 2022)

CleverNickName said:


> I guess my experience with Proficiency Dice is different.
> 
> That optional rule hasn't slowed our game down at all.  But that's because we play virtually on Roll20, and Proficiency Dice is an option you toggle on in the game setup menu.  Once it's toggled on, nobody ever has to think about it again--it's rolled automatically in the background.  After 3 or 4 gaming sessions, my players and I had forgotten that we agreed to use them.
> 
> I can't really say that it has _broken_ bounded accuracy either...certainly not "nuking it from orbit," as some have suggested.  The game feels a lot more swingy now, and skill checks and attack rolls are somewhat less predictable.  Not by a _lot, _though...it didn't ruin the game.  Like I said, after 3 or 4 gaming sessions we had forgotten they were there.



Mine was similar.  It doesn't cause measurable slowdown & bounded accuracy is broken from the getgo even before using proficiency dice so the odds of rolling below standard proficiency values  more than negates the chance of rolling above


----------



## rules.mechanic (Oct 26, 2022)

Yaarel said:


> We can compare the 5e Warlock, with regard to Short Rest mechanics.
> 
> The spell point system converts the Warlock chassis into spell points. The difference is the Warlock progression comes in big lumps at each slot increase, whereas the spell point system progression increments smoothly increasing at 1 point at each new level. Overall the difference between the Short Rest slots and the level+1 Short Rest points is a wash.



I think the higher level spells are still an issue. Warlock slots only go up to 5th level spells. Mystic Arcanum then allows you 6th-9th level spells, but only one of each per long rest. And these are also not regained by the Eldritch Master feature. So 1x per long rest really is ingrained for 6th to 9th level spells for casters.


----------



## rules.mechanic (Oct 26, 2022)

CleverNickName said:


> I guess my experience with Proficiency Dice is different.
> 
> That optional rule hasn't slowed our game down at all.  But that's because we play virtually on Roll20, and Proficiency Dice is an option you toggle on in the game setup menu.  Once it's toggled on, nobody ever has to think about it again--it's rolled automatically in the background.  After 3 or 4 gaming sessions, my players and I had forgotten that we agreed to use them.
> 
> I can't really say that it has _broken_ bounded accuracy either...certainly not "nuking it from orbit," as some have suggested.  The game feels more swingy now, and skill checks and attack rolls are somewhat less predictable.  Not by a _lot, _though...it didn't ruin the game.  Like I said, after 3 or 4 gaming sessions we had forgotten they were there.



Proficiency Dice can be used to improve bounded accuracy. When you have advantage, you only roll the proficiency die once. When you have expertise, that's when you roll your proficiency die with advantage (instead of the current system of rolling two proficiency dice and using both).


----------



## rules.mechanic (Oct 26, 2022)

Other DMG optional rules that could be looked at are Degrees of Failure & Success at a Cost. This could be better defined and also expanded to include Degree of Success. It could even be expanded to the other d20 tests with saves and even attack rolls, but I know that's more contentious!


----------



## Clint_L (Oct 26, 2022)

I want the DM's Guide to read more like, well, a _guide._ Right now, aside from magic items, it is probably the least used sourcebook in the game, and the Player's Handbook is the text that really matters.

DMing is hard. The first half of the DM's Guide, if not more, should be about teaching players to DM, including small adventures, similar to the ones in _Explorer's Guide to Wildemount_.


----------



## Yaarel (Oct 27, 2022)

rules.mechanic said:


> I think the higher level spells are still an issue. Warlock slots only go up to 5th level spells. Mystic Arcanum then allows you 6th-9th level spells, but only one of each per long rest. And these are also not regained by the Eldritch Master feature. So 1x per long rest really is ingrained for 6th to 9th level spells for casters.



Initially, I assumed the upper tier slots would be a problem. But, for the Short Rest spell points, with character level +1 points where cost=slot, it works fine.


----------



## Clint_L (Oct 27, 2022)

Levistus's_Leviathan said:


> As we all know, no one reads the D&D 5e Dungeon Master's Guide...



So, that's what I want OneD&D to address. Make the DM's Guide something worth reading, rather than just an expensive book you have to buy solely for the Magic items lists. Or else move magic items to the PHB and make the DM's Guide completely optional.

That said, sure, include/expand some optional rules in it. But that shouldn't be what the book is all about, unless it is retitled _DM's Optional Rules for D&D, Totally Optional, U Don't Need to Buy This, Guide_.


----------



## Snarf Zagyg (Oct 27, 2022)

Levistus's_Leviathan said:


> As we all know, no one reads the D&D 5e Dungeon Master's Guide. However, for the few people on this site that have, what optional parts of it do you think should be expanded upon in the One D&D playtest?
> 
> By "expanded", I mean given heavy revisions the same way that Inspiration and Exhaustion have been revised in the current playtest documents.
> 
> ...




So a few thoughts.

First, I think the use of the DMG for optional rules is the best use possible. It is supposed to fire the imagination. For those who choose to engage with it, the book is supposed to give you ideas and options. Not all of them are going to things a DM is going to want for their table, but some of them will be the seeds for how a table is going to adjust the game to make it play the way they want. It's fully in keeping with the character and the history of D&D that a primary purpose of this rulebook is to remind you that the table, not the book, is in charge of the rules.

That said, I think the flanking (and other miniature rules) are both a decent start but also under-developed. I'd prefer that the DMG, instead of having it either more developed or less developed, instead have a description of the differences between grid/minis/TOTM play, and have more advanced mini play as a separate supplement. Flanking is good if you like minis, but people that are really into the combat modifiers and minis are going to want a lot more.

What I think might be interesting is having a more built-out and "themed section" with grouped-together optional rules ... as if they were various levers. For example, if you want to ratchet up the resource management and grittiness, there's a bunch of different optional rules ... why not have them together in one section, as different aspects? Or if you prefer a more narrative approach (or more player control over fiction) have those ideas together?


----------



## tetrasodium (Oct 27, 2022)

Snarf Zagyg said:


> So a few thoughts.
> 
> First, I think the use of the DMG for optional rules is the best use possible. It is supposed to fire the imagination. For those who choose to engage with it, the book is supposed to give you ideas and options. Not all of them are going to things a DM is going to want for their table, but some of them will be the seeds for how a table is going to adjust the game to make it play the way they want. It's fully in keeping with the character and the history of D&D that a primary purpose of this rulebook is to remind you that the table, not the book, is in charge of the rules.
> 
> ...



You don't need "minis" for grid play, I remember doing it with candy & graph paper many years ago.  With that said VTTs  have grown a lot since 2014 & support grid play full on  without needing anything more than an image & simple  web app.  Levelup has a full set of tokens for free download.  Paizo has announced that they are working with caeora  to put out their full set of monsters in a token pack early next year .  Then we all know wotc announced they are putting out a vtt in a couple years.

What tactical grid combat needs more than liking minis or a "_separate_ supplement" is core rules that make efforts to support rather than thwart it as a playstyle.  When short range on a ranged weapon is 30 5 foot squares in a system built around 5 foot increments for everything & there are feats to double that or add 60 feet to spell attacks while ignoring cover it does the opposite of supporting grid combat because Alice & Bob  get to have opt out veto power over it.


----------



## Levistus's_Leviathan (Oct 27, 2022)

Snarf Zagyg said:


> So a few thoughts.
> 
> First, I think the use of the DMG for optional rules is the best use possible. It is supposed to fire the imagination. For those who choose to engage with it, the book is supposed to give you ideas and options. Not all of them are going to things a DM is going to want for their table, but some of them will be the seeds for how a table is going to adjust the game to make it play the way they want. It's fully in keeping with the character and the history of D&D that a primary purpose of this rulebook is to remind you that the table, not the book, is in charge of the rules.
> 
> ...



Having groups of different optional feats categorized by "theme" would be cool. Ravenloft has a group of setting-specific rules (Survivors, Stress, cosmetic spell changes, etc) that could replace the Horror and Insanity optional rules from the DMG. They could do similar things for the Gritty/Survival, Nonlethal, Tactical, and other types of play in the game, probably even calling out settings and campaign ideas where they'd work best (Horror for Ravenloft, Gritty for Dark Sun, Nonlethal for the Feywild, Tactical for Dragonlance, etc). Good idea!


----------



## overgeeked (Nov 7, 2022)

Resting. The default is nonsense but gritty realism is almost as bad. Something that splits the difference would be good.

Skill variants. They should be combined to one solid skill variant. You’re proficient in the ability scores you get save profs in from your class, and get prof bonus to any skill that’s directly related to your background and race, and anything directly related to your personality traits.

Morale shouldn’t be tied to WIS. It should be a standalone score so you can have fanatically devoted and driven monsters that have a low WIS. It shouldn’t be an optional rule.


----------



## Yaarel (Nov 7, 2022)

overgeeked said:


> Resting. The default is nonsense but gritty realism is almost as bad. Something that splits the difference would be good.



Without having tested it, I feel an impulse to reduce the Short Rest to 15 minutes and increase the Long Rest to 24 hours.


----------



## Twiggly the Gnome (Nov 8, 2022)

overgeeked said:


> Morale shouldn’t be tied to WIS. It should be a standalone score so you can have fanatically devoted and driven monsters that have a low WIS. It shouldn’t be an optional rule.



Yeah, using WIS produces weird results on the high and low ends, like bloodthirsty Celestials and cowardly animated objects.


----------



## overgeeked (Nov 29, 2022)

To add to mine, I agree with earlier posters who said injuries. 

Characters should get injuries from critical hits, dropping to zero hp, and attacks taken while at zero hp. 

Make them actually interesting and long lasting. You could steal WFRP's critical hit tables, especially some of the expanded charts, and they'd be about right.


----------

