The 2024 DMG cares even less about dungeons

After hearing gossip about it for weeks, I finally got a chance to look at the 2024 version of the D&D 5e DMG. Reception to the book has been positive. There is a lot of advice for navigating the game's many notorious social pitfalls. There's a section that says that players aren't supposed to exploit the game's rules! ...People needed that to come down from the mountain for some reason.

As more information came out, I noticed small details mentioned in passing that threw up red flags for me. It seemed like no one else was talking about it. Was it true that the new DMG wouldn't include rules for creating monsters? Was it true that the Dungeon Master's Guide reduced rules for making dungeons?

Kinda. The rules for "creating a creature" are abysmal, and are better described as "modifying an existing creature", because that's all the guidance the book gives - the authors recommend changing a creature's size, type, ability scores (so long as they don't affect its attack bonus, damage, AC, hit points, or spellcasting ability), languages, proficiencies, senses, spells (so long as the spells don't do damage), the flavor and name of its attacks, and its resistances and immunities. They also recommend adding traits, and give a handful of examples.

I never loved the 2014 DMG's monster creation rules. But at least the authors provided the information to extrapolate a custom monster's CR from its statistics, and vice versa. It was an involved process, but the guidelines were there. The new DMG just tells the DM how to reskin skeletons into ice skeletons.

Maybe the upcoming Monster Manual has more detailed guidelines. But, I doubt it.

As for dungeons, there's still something there, but it's different, and I'm not sure it's in a good way. 

For comparison, let's review what the 2014 DMG presented. The information is in two places - Chapter 5 and Appendix A.

The former has tables for determining a dungeon's location, its creator, its purpose, and historical events, usually related to its ruin. I've always found these tables useful. For fun, I tried rolling up a dungeon just now and got the following results:

• Location: Underwater
• Creator: Dwarves
• Purpose: Lair
• History: Dwarves still in control

Underwater + Dwarves immediately throws me for a loop, and in a lot of cases I might reroll, but I think, "Okay, this is a dwarf stronghold or mine that flooded and is now submerged. That's cool." I get Lair as the purpose, which is fine - an underground dwarf colony that struck an aquifer and flooded makes sense.

Then I roll "Original creator still in control." I could reroll this too, but instead, I'm now thinking that this is a sea dwarf homestead. Are they water-breathing dwarves, or do they have a Gungan set up with means of keeping the water out, with submersible vessels to travel to and from the surface? What deep-sea mining are they doing down there? Or were they regular dwarves, but they turned into fish people and flooded their home on purpose? Or did they all die in the flood and reanimate as aquatic undead?

Those four simple rolls provide a lot of fuel for the dungeon conceptualization fire. Once I have the big idea, it's easy to imagine what the place looks like, and what monsters, traps, tricks, and treasures are there.

The chapter goes on to describe dungeon factions and ecology, and to recommend varying encounter difficulty. There's guidance about mapping a dungeon, and descriptions of dungeon features like walls, doors, light, air, and sound, and dungeon hazards.

Appendix A looks like Appendix A of the AD&D 1e DMG, which I'm sure is an intentional throwback, considering the nostalgia-oriented design of 5e. I don't care for this random style of dungeon design, with impractical fractal corridors and bizarre geometry, but I found it helpful when I started mapping dungeons and had no idea what I was doing. It's helpful to have random tables of rooms sizes, corridor lengths, and door types. It prevents every room from being 30 feet by 30 feet or every door from being stuck or locked.

The later section, "Stocking a Dungeon", is far more useful. It starts with tables which list what rooms can be found in each type of dungeon (going back to the "Dungeon Purpose" table in Chapter 5). I'm not going to create a random dungeon layout where the treasure vault or fire giant king's bedroom is the first room in the dungeon and the audience chamber ends up in the middle for some reason, but it is helpful to have a big list of rooms that can be found in a given type of dungeon. 

It is helpful to know that a "death trap" usually has an antechamber, a guardroom, a puzzle room, a trapped room, a scrying chamber, and a vault hidden behind a secret door and protected by traps. I don't have to include all those rooms, and I can include others, but if I don't know what a room should be, I can refer to this list and use it like a dungeon checklist.

The "Stocking a Dungeon" section continues with a "Current Chamber State" table, which is fine, but following that is "Chamber Contents", which includes a more traditional dungeon stocking table, which the DM can roll on to determine what the "main thing" in the room is: is it empty, or does it contain a monster, trick, trap, or treasure?

Unfortunately, I don't like this table. 50% of the results are monsters, and only 20% of the rooms are empty. The remaining balance is 8% dungeon hazards, 5% obstacles, 13% traps, and 4% tricks. Compare that to AD&D's distribution:

That's 60% empty rooms, 25% monsters, and 5% each special, trick/trap, and treasure. The problem with 5e's stocking table is that it has twice the frequency of monsters, and 80% of rooms contain bad things that will happen to the characters. No wonder 5e players think dungeons are un-fun slogs! 

I use my own version of the AD&D table to stock my 5e dungeons, or I use Delta's rule. But although I dislike the way the 2014 DMG presents dungeon stocking, I still appreciate that they demonstrate it as something the DM can do.

The rest of Appendix A has a lot of tables. There's a "Monster Motivation" table, which is like a reaction roll, and decent. There's a limited "Dungeon Hazards" table. There are obstacles, traps, tricks, and tons of dungeon dressing tables. I don't use this stuff now, but when I got back into D&D, these were useful as idea generators.

The most useful resources for dungeon building in the 2014 DMG are the tables for determining the dungeon's location, creator, purpose, and history, plus the list of rooms found in each type of dungeon. The dungeon stocking table is lackluster, but is serviceable for a DM who wants to lean into 5e's tactical combat action-centric design. It suggests that one can use a dungeon stocking table, and a DM can modify the exact distribution of room types to taste. These elements combined are a great introduction to conceptualizing dungeons as well filling those dungeons with interesting things.

Now, let's look at what's been included in the 2024 DMG - and what hasn't.

The 2024 DMG has been entirely reorganized. I'm going to refer to "Chapter 3: DM's Toolbox", which has a section on dungeons. The dungeon-oriented Appendix A of 2014 has been eliminated. 

The dungeon location, creator, purpose, and history tables have been collapsed into one "Dungeon Quirks" table. The book recommends using a single quirk or combining as many quirks as the DM likes. As a demonstration, let's see what we get.

First, I roll "Abandoned because the site was cursed by a god or other powerful entity", which is dungeon history. It doesn't tell me anything about where the site is, who built it, what it is, or, by extension, what god or powerful entity it's related to. So, I roll again to add another element to it. 

Next, I roll "Amazingly well preserved ancient city inside a dome encased in volcanic ash, submerged underwater, or entombed in desert sands." Specific, but okay. I now know where and what the dungeon is, and why it was abandoned. I don't know who built it, so I roll again.

I roll "Built in a volcano." The city was already potentially buried in volcanic ash, so...sure. We're just getting more specific about the location.

I roll again. "Transformed by multiple events or disasters over the course of centuries." Sure. That can describe many dungeons, and hasn't added much to this particular dungeon.

I roll again. Finally, I get "Made by a powerful spellcaster (perhaps a lich) as a site for magical research and experimentation." I feel like I have a sufficient overview of the dungeon. It took five rolls to get there, and two of those rolls only added redundant details.

I tried again, and it took six rolls to get those same four pieces of information (location, creator, purpose, and history), with three redundant rolls.

Some extra rolling isn't a big deal, but there are other consequences. Collapsing four tables into one results in entries being cut. One can no longer generate a dungeon made by elves, hobgoblins, mind flayers, or yuan-ti (all of which were included in 2014's "Dungeon Creator" table).

That's not to say a DM can't include those dungeons in their game using the 2024 rules, but it was helpful for the 2014 DMG to say, "These are the four things a DM needs to know about their dungeon." The table entries are not super important, but by rolling all four elements into one table and not calling them out explicitly, the four elements are hidden from the new DM. 

The rest of the section on dungeons is similar to parts of the 2014 DMG. A dungeon is chambers and passages and a DM usually maps it on graph paper. Use asymmetry and three dimensions and branching paths and wear and tear and natural features and secrets. Got it.

Then, there's a list of rooms that can be found in dungeons and a brief blurb about each: crypts, guard posts, living quarters, subterranean areas, shrines, vaults, and work areas. That's all.

Of course the book is not suggesting those are all the rooms in a dungeon, or in every dungeon, but it's still a step back from what came before. It was helpful for the 2014 DMG to say, "Now that you know your dungeon was once a lair, here is a list of rooms often found in a lair." The 2024 DMG says instead, "Now that you know your dungeon is a lich's laboratory, here is a list of rooms often found in dungeons in general."

What about stocking suggestions? I acknowledged that the table in the 2014 DMG was not great, but appreciated that it at least suggested an intended distribution of room types, and that this might then lead to DMs customizing the stocking table to fit their tastes. Is there anything like this in the 2024 DMG?

No. The book says to vary encounters by including a mix of combat, exploration, and roleplaying, as well as easy, medium, and hard encounters, but I can't find any suggestions about the number of encounters to include, or traps, or tricks, or treasure, or how much of a dungeon should be empty. There are suggestions about building tension and managing the pace of the game, including when to let the characters rest, but nothing else. The authors eliminated the useful and unfairly maligned "adventuring day", so the DM can't design a dungeon around that structure, either.

The new DMG says that dungeons can be a variety of locations and sizes and that I should map them. I know that they have rooms and monsters and traps and treasure, but I have no idea how many or what kind and in what proportion. The 2024 DMG doesn't tell me. It tells me to figure it out myself. It's not unlike the 2014 DMG in that way, but it is a step further in that direction.

If the AD&D 1e DMG is D&D's encyclopedia, then the 2024 DMG is D&D's self-help book. It's very encouraging, and nice. It might get a DM motivated to start a new game, but it's not a reference document. It doesn't help the DM run the game. The DM is going to have to help themselves.

It's not bad, or useless, but it's worse, and less useful than the 2014 DMG (which is saying something), whereas I thought the 2024 rules were supposed to be more useful. I thought they were supposed to be better for new DMs and players. I thought that was the whole point...aside from doing the bare minimum to remarket and resell 5e all over again, that is.

...On the plus side, reaction rolls are back! In true 5e fashion, the rules are worse than previous iterations of the same concept from an entire 50 years ago, but maybe that's a topic for another time.

The 2024 Player's Handbook Wants the Player to Know All the DCs For Some Reason

I had a chance to look over the new PHB and wanted to record some of my thoughts about what I found there. This isn't meant to be an exhaustive changelog with minor revisions to individual classes, subclasses, races, feats, spells, and the like - others have already done that. It also isn't a "review", per se - others have done that, too. Rather, I wanted to call attention to a few topics in particular that I thought were noteworthy changes - some good, some bad, some...interesting - that I haven't seen reported on elsewhere.

It's worth noting that some of these items might be elaborated on further in the DMG. These are just my impressions based on what's available so far.

I'm going through these items in order as they appear in the book, so there's no real rhyme or reason as to how this post is organized.

I love this piece by Noor Rahman in the rules glossary. Click to embiggen.

Skills

I want to call attention to the fact that skill proficiencies are still, by default, tied to ability scores. That is, the player makes a Charisma (Performance) check. I mention this because this little blurb is still included on page 14:

Skills with Different Abilities

Each skill proficiency is associated with an ability check. For example, the Intimidation skill is associated with Charisma. In some situations, the DM might allow you to apply your skill proficiency to a different ability check. For example, if a character tries to intimidate someone through a show of physical strength, the DM might ask for a Strength (Intimidation) check rather than a Charisma (Intimidation) check. That character would make a Strength check and add their Proficiency Bonus if they have Intimidation proficiency.

I understand why skills are tied to ability scores by default - players and DMs can both benefit from having some idea of what normally goes with what - but I personally really wish they had done away with the default pairings entirely. 

It is enough to know that a character is proficient in Intimidation - the DM gets to decide if a situation calls for a character's proficiency to be added to a Strength check, a Charisma check, or some other ability check entirely, and leaving it open might entice players to come up with creative ways to advocate for the use of their skills in unusual situations. Maybe that is just too "advanced" for the PHB, and I certainly wouldn't want players arguing that they can use Strength to make a Perception check, because that doesn't make any sense (not that that's stopping the 2024 barbarian).

The "Skills with Different Abilities" rule is one of my favorites in 5e, and I wish it was used more, but players see "Persuasion (Charisma)" on their character sheet and assume that NPCs can be persuaded only by the character's innate ability to influence (Charisma), and not with logical or intuitive arguments (Intelligence and Wisdom, respectively).

Social Interaction

This is one of my favorite topics to discuss. The social interaction "pillar" is often criticized for being too threadbare. Does the 2024 PHB improve it?

The 2014 PHB took a rules-light approach to social interaction, explaining that players could use a "descriptive" or "active" approach - i.e., describing what their character does or says while interacting with an NPC versus speaking in-character and saying exactly what the character says. The DM then uses their knowledge of the NPC's personality to adjudicate the results, sometimes calling for an ability check. The DMG, in turn, has information on NPC's attitudes (friendly, indifferent, or hostile), associated social interaction DCs, and how to actually adjudicate the interaction.

The 2024 PHB now provides an example of social interaction, including examples of both descriptive and active roleplaying. The friendly, indifferent, and hostile attitudes return, and are now included in the PHB's rules glossary. Player characters have advantage on ability checks to influence friendly creatures and disadvantage on ability checks to influence hostile creatures. The DM can now call on player characters to take the Influence action to urge an NPC to do something.

I like that the PHB explicitly states "The DM will typically ask you to take the Influence action", which will hopefully avoid players simply yelling "I take the Influence action!" instead of actually roleplaying the interaction. Hopefully. 

The rules for the Influence action also state that requests that align with the NPC's desires automatically succeed, and those which don't automatically fail. An ability check is only needed if the NPC is "hesitant". Here's the kicker, though:

The GM chooses the check, which has a default DC equal to 15 or the monster's Intelligence score, whichever is higher. On a successful check, the monster does as urged. On a failed check, you must wait 24 hours (or a duration set by the DM) before urging it in the same way again.

First, I can see why the DM chooses which ability check the player makes, but I also think it should be framed more as a discussion. The player should be able to say "I say 'blah blah blah'." If the DM then says "Okay, make a Persuasion check", the player should be able to say "Wait, no. I was trying to threaten them" (or whatever). It also, again, might preclude the player from trying to convince an NPC using a logical or intuitive argument (if the DM habitually falls back on the default Charisma check). Like with any other part of the gameplay loop, the player and DM need to be on the same page about what the player is trying to do and how they're trying to do it. 

Maybe I'm reading too much into it, but the codifying of social interaction in this way feels so rigid. It doesn't seem like it's teaching new players how to navigate these situations in a way which ensures that the DM is hearing them and adjudicating their actions appropriately.

Second, what is with those DCs? 15 or the NPC's Intelligence score - no matter the NPC, no matter their personality, no matter the player's approach? The friendly and hostile attitudes already provide advantage or disadvantage on ability checks, so the DCs don't necessarily need to be modified by attitude as they were in 2014, but I'm otherwise a bit baffled by this. 

Less intelligent NPCs are universally easier to Influence, regardless of whether or not the attempt to Influence them has anything to do with how smart they are, and intelligent NPCs are universally harder to Influence, even if a well-reasoned argument might reasonably appeal more to a more intelligent NPC. A more intelligent NPC might be able to see through lies more easily, but if they are in a situation where they are in danger of being harmed or killed, shouldn't an intelligent NPC be able to recognize that, and perhaps be more susceptible to Intimidation?

Shouldn't some NPCs be more susceptible to one approach versus another? A cowardly politician who goes to the theater and regularly engages in intellectual discourse in the king's court would be difficult to deceive, persuade, or impress with a slam poetry performance, but would be easier to intimidate. A king who values emotion over facts and logic would be more susceptible to an impassioned plea than a cold accounting of the facts at hand. Shouldn't player attempts at Deception be opposed by the NPC's Insight? Shouldn't player attempts to Intimidate the NPC be opposed by the NPC's morale?

Admittedly, I'm realizing that my own social interaction procedures use flat DCs based on the NPC's disposition, which don't account for different approaches when attempting to interact with them, but this is as simple as noting the NPC's personality traits, ideals, bonds, flaws, and goals, and modifying the DCs up and down accordingly if necessary. 

The fact that the 2024 PHB's rules don't even allude to these differences between NPCs is what's driving me nuts. It suggests to players that the most optimal form of social interaction is to only ever use whichever skill they have the highest bonus in. That might be the approach most players take anyway, but if players know that different approaches work better or worse with different NPCs, they'll more likely make some attempt to understand what resonates with an NPC before deciding who in the party should speak to them and how. 

As printed in the 2024 PHB, the game is telling the players that all approaches work equally well with a given NPC, so they should just use whichever skill is best for them. It does offer this tidbit:

When interacting with an NPC, pay attention to the DM's portrayal of the NPC's personality. You might be able to learn an NPC's goals and then use that information to influence the NPC.

But this only really applies if the players are able to identify the NPC's goals such that their attempts to Influence the NPC are automatically successful - if they have to roll, it doesn't make any difference.

There's also something to be said about the limitation that a character can only urge an NPC in a given way once per 24 hours. Does that mean a character can only attempt to Influence the NPC with Persuasion once during that time, or will different approaches to persuading the NPC be treated as different urgings? It doesn't read that way. At least the rules are explicit here that the DM can choose a different duration, although I don't know how much good it does.

Hiding

After plenty of complaints of ambiguity about how hiding worked in the 2014 version of the rules, the 2024 PHB offers some clarity and...simplification. From page 368:

With the Hide action, you try to conceal yourself. To do so, you must succeed on a DC 15 Dexterity (Stealth) check while you're Heavily Obscured or behind Three-Quarters Cover or Total Cover, and you must be out of any enemy's line of sight; if you can see a creature, you can discern whether it can see you.

On a successful check, you have the Invisible condition. Make note of your check's total, which is the DC for a creature to find you with a Wisdom (Perception) check.\

The condition ends on you immediately after any of the following occurs: you make a sound louder than a whisper, an enemy finds you, you make an attack roll, or you cast a spell with a Verbal component.

First, this clarifies when a character can hide. The 2014 PHB, by comparison, says only "The DM decides when circumstances are appropriate for hiding." This is probably helpful to some people, although as a DM, I've never had a problem making a common-sense ruling as to when a creature can hide. I have heard that there are some DMs who are super stingy about when they allow characters to attempt to hide, so making the conditions player-facing is probably meant to alleviate that particular pain point.

It is weird that successfully hiding gives the creature the Invisible condition, which is not to be confused with being actually invisible in the reality of the fictional world. The capital I Invisible condition doesn't make the creature lower case i invisible, yet in this case, a creature that uses the Search action has to make a Perception check which beats the total of the other creature's Hide action in order to find them. The searcher does not see the hider just by looking at them, even if they are standing out in the open, so...they are invisible, kind of? 

Does Truesight, which allows a creature to see objects and creatures with the Invisible condition, then negate hiding? It shouldn't, because in the fiction, Truesight is the ability to see through illusions, shapechanging, and into the Ethereal Plane - being hidden by non-magical means is none of those things. It's literally giving me a headache to write this out.

Aside from that, the biggest problem I see with this is similar to the main gripe I had with the Influence action. What is with that flat DC? It used to be that Stealth checks were opposed by the monster or NPC's Passive Perception, which made plenty of sense - it represented the creature's ability to passively notice another creature attempting to hide without actively looking for it. Now, so long as the other conditions for hiding are met (and I'm accounting for special senses like Blindsight and Tremorsense here), a creature has the same chance of successfully hiding regardless of the situation or what/who it's hiding from.

A 1st-level rogue, assuming a starting Dexterity of 16 (+3) and expertise (+4) in Stealth (total of +7), has a 65% chance of hiding from anyone and everything. At 7th-level, once the rogue gets Reliable Talent, which gives them a minimum of 10 on the die when they roll any skill check with proficiency, that same rogue can successfully hide 100% of the time.

That's fantastic for the class fantasy of the rogue, and monster and NPC Passive Perception scores in the 2014 rules were such that this was often the case anyway, but it's also extremely simplistic and limiting. Again, aside from monsters and NPCs with the aforementioned special senses, all monsters and NPCs are equally easy to Hide from if the conditions are met.

It should be easier to Hide from a drunken guard than from a paranoid beholder with eyes more or less literally in the back of its head. The beholder can more easily find a hidden creature, I suppose, but it should also be harder to Hide from it in the first place.

Stabilized Player Characters Versus Unconscious Creatures

I'm not going to go off on this one, but I found it weird. In both the 2014 and 2024 rules, when a player character drops to 0 hit points but isn't killed and is then stabilized, they regain 1 hit point and become conscious after 1d4 hours.

In both the 2014 and 2024 rules, a player could choose, when reducing a creature to 0 hit points with a melee attack, to knock the creature out instead of killing it. Presumably, in the 2014 rules, unconscious monsters and NPCs worked the same as unconscious player characters, regaining 1 hit point after 1d4 hours.

In the 2024 rules, an unconscious monster or NPC is instead reduced to 1 hit point (because at 0 hit points they are dead, unless the DM makes an exception). The monster or NPC then starts a short rest, meaning they always regain consciousness after 1 hour, they get to roll all of their hit dice and heal for that amount, and they get back any abilities that recharge on a short rest.

It has more or less always been true that player characters and monsters and NPCs follow different rules, but in a few instances it really bothers me, and this is another such instance. Not a huge deal, but a weird quirk of the rules I haven't seen mentioned elsewhere.

Languages

I've written about languages before. One of my complaints was that it felt too easy to learn exotic languages, and that they weren't sufficiently differentiated from standard languages. The 2024 rules change languages just a bit. It's weird.

First, in desperation to remove any connection between a character's race/species and their culture, player characters no longer gain languages based on their race. Instead, all characters speak Common and two other standard languages.

The funny thing is, it's not clear how a character learns a rare language (exotic languages are now rare languages). The PHB says: "Some features let a character learn a rare language." For example, druids learn Druidic, rogues learn Thieves' Cant, and rangers learn two languages from their Deft Explorer feature. I don't know that there's any other way to learn these languages.

So, according to the rules, an aasimar can't know Celestial, an elf can't know Sylvan, a drow can't know Undercommon, and a tiefling can't know Abyssal or Infernal. A reasonable DM can obviously make an exception, but I do find it funny.

A piece by Chris Seaman shows how adventurers' equipment evolves with the tiers of play.

Starting Equipment at Higher Levels

Finally, a change I kind of sort of like. The 2024 PHB gives some recommendations for what kind of starting equipment newly made higher-level characters should have - some extra gold and magic items.

If I have a concern about this, it's that if a character with a bunch of magic items and treasure dies, the rest of the party can take their stuff, then a new character enters the game with more magic items and treasure. The more characters die, the more magic items and treasure are added to the party. It doesn't make sense to me that if a character with 20,000 gold and 10 magic items dies, the party salvages their stuff, and then another character with 20,000 gold and 10 magic items joins the party. The party as a whole is now 20,000 gold and 10 magic items richer because they messed up and someone died. 

The way I've handled this in my games is to treat magic items and treasure as belonging to the player, not the character. If a character dies with a bunch of magic items and treasure, that player's new character enters the game with equivalent magic items and treasure. If, however, the other characters loot the dead character and either use or sell their stuff, that stuff no longer belongs to the player whose character died, and their new character enters with fewer items and treasure.

It's a bit meta and not entirely fair to the player with the dead character, but they should have thought about that before they died. And they should convince the other players to give them some of their stuff back so that their new character isn't underpowered (making sure the new character isn't underpowered is in the other players' best interest as well).

Backgrounds

As far as I can tell, the 2024 PHB no longer even suggests that backgrounds are customizable, aside from this:

Each background includes a brief narrative of what your character's past might have been like. Alter the details of this narrative however you like.

The 2014 PHB referred to its backgrounds as "sample backgrounds", and went into detail as to how to customize them or work with the DM to create an entirely new one:

You might want to tweak some of the features of a background so it better fits your character or the campaign setting. To customize a background, you can replace one feature with any other one, choose any two skills, and choose a total of two tool proficiencies or languages from the sample backgrounds. You can either use the equipment package from your background or spend coin on gear as described in chapter 5. (If you spend coin, you can't also take the equipment package suggested for your class.) Finally, choose two personality traits, one ideal, one bond, and one flaw.

If you can't find a feature that matches your desired background, work with your DM to create one.

In my experience, most players do not even try to customize their background, but it happened occasionally when we were playing 5e, and I personally tried to do it with all of my characters. Players new to D&D who start with the 2024 PHB might not even think to ask their DM about the possibility, which is a real shame.

Ability score increases are now tied to backgrounds, which is fine. I personally like my dwarves sturdy and taciturn and my elves lithe and frail, but I get why the culture has moved away from that. 

What's funny is that, beginning a few years ago, Wizards of the Coast did away with specified ability score increases entirely in favor of letting players build the exact characters they wanted, then tied the ability score increases to backgrounds in the 2024 playtest materials, and now...made them specific again? For example, a player who chooses the acolyte background can now only increase some combination of Intelligence, Wisdom, or Charisma (+2 to one and +1 to another, or +1 to all three).

In the 2014 rules, a player might choose to be a dwarf fighter because that race and class synergize well, then have their pick of interesting backgrounds with which to differentiate that character. Now, a player might choose to be a soldier fighter for the same reason, and it is instead the species which differentiates the character.

It's not necessarily better or worse, it's just...different. The race/species and background have just changed places. (Considering the fantasy bioessentialism of it all, maybe it is slightly better now. I just never particularly cared about that but I understand why some people do.)

Perhaps worst of all is that the 2024 PHB does away with traits, bonds, ideals, flaws, and background features (the latter are more or less replaced by origin feats, which are more mechanically useful but less interesting to me). 

I personally loved the TBIFs and used those suggested by each background to create my own for each character. Instead, the character creation chapter suggests one-word descriptors based on the character's ability scores and alignment, which is...fine. It's just kind of a little bit...boring? Uninspiring?

The background features were never terribly exciting - they mostly amounted to some way for the character to obtain free room and board in a settlement - but I felt that they were interesting little roleplaying tidbits. They invited the player and DM to collaborate on something together - the acolyte's home temple or shrine, the criminal's black market contact, or the entertainer's preferred tavern to perform at. It felt good to be the street urchin who could show the rest of the party a faster way through a busy urban neighborhood, or to be the sage who knew how to use the fantasy Dewey Decimal System.

Tools and Adventuring Gear

Every tool and bit of adventuring gear now has a little description about what a character can use it for. Tools list what items a character can craft with them. A character can use perfume to get advantage on Persuasion checks to Influence Indifferent Humanoids. Cute! But also very specific for some reason.

A character can use alchemist's supplies to identify a substance! Cartographer's tools to make a map! Jeweler's tools to appraise a gem! 

What is with these DCs?!

DC 15 to identify any substance? DC 15 to make a map of any area? DC 15 to appraise any gem? It goes on and on like this! A DC 20 check with a gaming set to "win the game". What game? Who is the character playing against? DC 20 to win any game against anyone?

Admittedly, this isn't the first time these DCs have appeared in a book, at least not with regards to tools. DCs to do a variety of things with tools were first printed in Xanathar's Guide to Everything. But now, they've infected the entire equipment list: DC 10 to apply makeup with a disguise kit (what?), DC 13 to wrap a chain around any creature, DC 10 to tie a knot with a rope. It's enough to make me go completely mad.

Of course the DM is well within their rights to change any of this nonsense. Of course. But the DCs are in the PHB! Why? That's DM-facing information - players literally do not need to know this information, and that goes for social interaction, and hiding, and equipment, and everything else. The section on making ability checks should tell the player how to make an ability check, then say "The DM determines the DC." That's all the player needs to know. The book is actively undermining the DM's ability to adjudicate these situations by implying that there are set-in-stone DCs for any of these things.

All of the tools also have an associated ability score, which mostly seem arbitrary. Painter's supplies require Wisdom, as do all gaming sets (dragonchess doesn't use Intelligence, and playing cards don't use Charisma, so no bluffing). All musical instruments use Charisma (dexterous fingers have nothing to do with playing a string instrument - it's all about convincing people that the performance is good through force of personality).

I've seen a few people praise the new equipment section, so I was especially startled when I read and saw just how bad it actually is.

Spellcasting Services

This is nice - there are suggested prices for NPCs to cast spells for the party. Of course, I'm once again wondering why this is in the PHB, and if it must be in the PHB, why there isn't some disclaimer that the DM can change it or decide that certain services aren't available. Still, it's nice enough, and the prices seem reasonable.

I also find it interesting that the table aligns pretty closely with my own ideas about what services are available in which types of settlements. I've always run it so that Tier 1 NPCs can be found in villages, Tier 2 NPCs in towns, Tier 3 NPCs in cities, and Tier 4 NPCs in metropolises, which is exactly what the table suggests (minus the metropolises).

Where Are the Downtime Rules?

I don't know. They're not in the 2024 PHB (crafting is, but none of the other options). 

The new DMG includes rules for player character bastions, so maybe they're lumped together with downtime rules there. Or maybe they've gotten rid of downtime altogether. I wouldn't be surprised.

That's all I've got for now. I've spent a little bit of time looking at how they changed the classes and spells and whatnot but honestly my eyes just kind of glaze over whenever I try too hard to read that stuff.

I'll probably do another post like this when I can get a look at the DMG. Hopefully it will give me less of a headache and I'll have more positive things to say, but I've already heard some things that make me think I, uh...might not like it. Lol.

An Update on the Adventuring Day

Apparently, the 2024 edition of the 5e DMG will not include the concept of "the adventuring day".

by Matt Ray

This isn't really much of a surprise to me. As my previous post detailed, the adventuring day has always been a controversial (and misunderstood) concept in 5e. People got hung up on the "6 to 8 medium to hard encounters" of it all, and ended up missing the forest for the trees - that is, that the adventuring day concept was simply demonstrating that player characters are intended to face a certain degree of challenge (measured in XP) between long rests.

What made the adventuring day helpful is that it attempted to quantify the attrition that player characters are expected to experience between long rests, when all of their hit points and abilities reset. The important thing wasn't the exact number of encounters or their difficulty, but simply that player characters should have at least three encounters (allowing for a minimum of two short rests) between long rests, and that these encounters gradually wear down the characters' resources. Attrition is the primary means by which the characters are challenged - not so much each individual encounter.

This was especially important in 5e, because characters recover resources (and especially hit points) much faster than in previous editions, where attrition could be drawn out over a longer period of time.

I felt that the adventuring day concept was - at the very least - helpful for planning dungeons. If I wanted a short dungeon, I could plan for it to have an adventuring day's worth of encounters. If I wanted a three-level dungeon, each level could have an adventuring day's worth of encounters. And in a dungeon environment, it has always made sense for there to be that number of encounters. The adventuring day worked perfectly well for me in dungeon-crawling scenarios.

The problem, as I see it, is that inexperienced 5e DMs don't run dungeons - at least not the kind that the adventuring day seems to encourage. The 5e DMG barely teaches dungeon design, and when it does, the guidelines are not great. (For example, according to page 296, 50% of dungeon rooms contain monsters - why yes, that does sound like an un-fun slog! Compare that to AD&D, where only 25% of rooms contain monsters.) 

Instead of running dungeons, most 5e DMs seem to Google "D&D battle map" until they find one that's like, a shattered causeway being held up by a petrified giant's hand while a volcano is erupting or something (which is cool I guess - I've never understood how people use these hyper-specific battle maps unless they are designing the whole adventure around them, but more power to them), then plop down some tokens on the map and voila - find a way to get the player characters to the big damn fight, and that's the session. At most, they are running Five Room Dungeons (which I have my own problems with).

Anyway, I thought it was funny that I just wrote a post about how the adventuring day is an unfairly-maligned concept which is actually kind of useful, then find out that, like many such things throughout D&D's history of editions, it is getting dropped in the 2024 rulebooks. What are we getting instead?

According to Christian Hoffer:

The new 2024 Dungeon Master's Guide contains a streamlined guide to combat encounter planning, with a simplified set of instructions on how to build an appropriate encounter for any set of characters. The new rules are pretty basic - the DM determines an XP budget based on the difficulty level they're aiming for (with choices of low, moderate, or high, which is a change from the 2014 Dungeon Master's Guide) and the level of the characters in a party. They then spend that budget on creatures to actually craft the encounter. 

But we already had that. XP budgets for encounters of different difficulty levels were already in the 2014 DMG, it just also told DMs how to string those encounters together in a combination that would challenge the player characters. Instead, the 2024 DMG includes advice about "encounter pace and how to balance player desire to take frequent Short Rests with ratcheting up tension within the adventure." 

Sure. I'm sure those guidelines will be very...thorough.

This certainly isn't the end of the world. After all, the adventuring day is a very new concept - it's not some sacred cow of original D&D. In fact, I'm sure most gorgnards and OSR people alike detest the very concept. 

But honestly, one of the things I really like about 5e is that the designers explicitly say "X characters of Y level can handle A monsters of B CR, and they can do that C number of times per day before they need to take a break." It's clinical and math-y, but I also find it very helpful in broadly gauging what my players' characters can handle. I miss it when I play AD&D because it takes a lot of the guesswork out of prep. 

Sure, it's only slightly more useful than "X characters of Y level can handle A monsters of B CR - you decide how many of those encounters you and your players want!" But, I don't see why as a game designer one would design an "improved" version of the game with...slightly less useful guidelines.

We'll have to wait until the new DMG is more widely available to see what these new guidelines actually look like. I am trying to reserve judgment, but I do find it funny how the "refined" rules for 5e, with 10 years of hindsight, seem to be eliminating rules and advice from the original rulebooks, replacing them instead with flat DCs for hiding and tying knots. I look forward to perusing the new DMG to see just how much they've gotten rid of. (For free, of course - there's no way I'm paying for these books.)

On Illusions

I recently ran a handful of sessions in a 5e game in which the player characters had earned the enmity of an arch-illusionist (more on that later). An illusionist is like most good Batman villains - not a particularly powerful adversary in combat (Batman will usually beat the piss out of the Joker, the Riddler, or the Mad Hatter once he gets his hands on them), but extremely frustrating up until the moment they can finally be confronted. I wanted my antagonist illusionist to feel like that. 

With that in mind, I started familiarizing myself with the school of illusion, thinking of how best to make this scenario as difficult for the player characters as possible. It was time for them to experience the terrifying power of light and sound.

Illusions are something of a prickly topic in D&D. Players whose characters rely on illusions require a DM who is willing and able to roleplay their monsters and NPCs with fidelity to the in-character/out-of-character knowledge divide. DMs whose monsters and NPCs rely on illusions require players who are willing and able to do the same. 

There are a variety of spells which create images, sounds, smells, tastes, and tactile sensations of differing complexity. These spells create sensations which sometimes appear real to all who see them, and sometimes appear only in the minds of a chosen creature or creatures, and it can be challenging to keep track of which spells do what. 

Illusions are only as powerful as we allow them to be. To take away their power, one only has to stop believing in them...right?

The Illusionist

The illusionist, as we know it today, did not exist in the original, 1974 version of D&D. While a magic-user earned the title of "Conjurer" at 3rd-level, "Enchanter" at 7th-level, and "Necromancer" at 10th-level (all names of what would later become "specialist" wizards), there is no level at which an OD&D magic-user becomes an "Illusionist".

That's not to say illusions did not exist in OD&D - phantasmal forces, invisibility, hallucinatory terrain, and projected image all appear in Book I: Men & Magic.

In 1975, Peter Aronson created the Illusionist class for D&D, which was later published in Strategic Review and Dragon magazine. Around the same time, Len Lakofka, in his fanzine Liaisons Dangereuses, put forth four "specialties" for magic-users - one of which was the Illusionist. 

Between Aronson and Lakofka is probably the origin for the very idea that spells in D&D could be sorted into "schools", and that magic-users could choose to "specialize" in one of them. So, for all those people who are aggrieved by the inconsistencies present in the schools of magic, or by wizards later being pigeonholed into specialization as a concept - blame them! I for one really enjoy the classification of schools of magic - even when it confounds me - as well as the concept of specialist wizards.

The Illusionist officially appears as "a sub-class of magic-users" in AD&D 1e, with Gary Gygax presenting a retooled version of Aronson's concept. Illusionists gained access to a spell list which was largely distinct from that of the magic-user, including dozens of new spells which were either classified as illusions or were illusion-adjacent (1e being the first edition in which spells were sorted into schools in the PHB or its equivalent), many of which would go on to become iconic spells which survive to this day - others would be collapsed and consolidated.

In AD&D 2e, the Illusionist appears as an example of a specialist wizard - wizards could now specialize in any of the eight schools of magic, all of which had similar benefits, but different restrictions tied to the character's race, ability scores, and the types of magic they could utilize. Like all specialists with their associated schools of magic, the Illusionist was better as memorizing, casting, resisting, learning, and researching illusions. The 2e Illusionist could be only a human or a gnome, needed a Dexterity score of 16 or higher, and was unable to cast spells from the schools of abjuration, evocation, and necromancy.

Illusionists appeared in 3e and 4e, but I don't find those editions' conceptualization of the class to be particularly interesting or worth discussion. Moving on.

In 5e, wizards can choose Illusion as their Arcane Tradition. Doing so allows them to copy illusion spells into their spellbooks more quickly and for less gold, automatically grants the minor illusion cantrip (an improved version of it, which allows the wizard to create both a sound and an image with a single casting of the spell), allows the wizard to change the nature of an existing illusion (i.e., without casting the spell again), create an illusory duplicate of their self to force an attack against them to automatically miss, and make an illusory object temporarily real (the example being the illusion of a bridge across a chasm, which is "real" just long enough for the wizard's allies to run across it).

As with 5e's version of the Necromancer, it's worth pointing out that - with the exception of the improved minor illusion and the 14th-level Illusory Reality feature - none of these features encourage 5e's Illusionist to actually use illusion spells. Sigh. As with all 5e wizards, shield, counterspell, and fireball are the Illusionist's bread and butter - but hey, they get minor illusion for free, so...there's that.

Anatomy of an Illusion

What exactly is an illusion? From 2e:

Illusions deal with spells to deceive the senses or minds of others. Spells that cause people to see things that are not there, hear noises not made, or remember things that never happened are all illusions.

And from 5e:

Illusion spells deceive the senses or minds of others. They cause people to see things that are not there, to miss things that are there, to hear phantom noises, or to remember things that never happened. Some illusions create phantom images that any creature can see, but the most insidious illusions plant an image directly in the mind of a creature.

Pretty similar. The 5e definition touches on the distinction between "phantom images that any creature can see" and images planted "directly in the mind of a creature". The 2e PHB actually goes into far greater detail regarding illusions (in Chapter 7, in a section that definitely should have instead been in the DMG):

Spells of this school fall into two basic groups. Illusions are creations that manipulate light, color, shadow, sound, and sometimes even scent. Higher level illusions tap energy from other planes, and are actually quasi-real, being woven of extradimensional energies by the caster. Common illusions create appearances; they cannot make a creature or object look like nothing (i.e., invisible), but they can conceal objects by making them look like something else.

Phantasms exist only in the minds of their victims; these spells are never even quasi-real. (The exceptions to this are the phantasmal force spells, which are actually illusions rather than phantasms.) Phantasms act upon the mind of the victim to create an intense reaction - fear being most common.

I say that this section should have instead been in the DMG because it goes into great detail about adjudicating illusions - believability, monster and NPC expectations and reactions, when a saving throw is warranted, how to handle "damage" from illusions, whether illusions can scare a creature to death, when to roll for system shock, and the like (I'll get to this later). 

As is often the case with AD&D, it's verbose, but not at all unhelpful or unwelcome. There is even more text on adjudicating illusions in Appendix 2 of the PHB - really, a section titled "Adjudicating Illusions" is in the Player's Handbook!

3e goes into even greater detail when distinguishing the types of illusions. There are figments, glamers, patterns, phantasms, and shadows:

A figment spell creates a false sensation. Those who perceive the figment perceive the same thing, not their own slightly different versions of the figment. (It is not a personalized mental impression.) Figments cannot make something seem to be something else.

A glamer spell changes a subject’s sensory qualities, making it look, feel, taste, smell, or sound like something else, or even seem to disappear.

Because figments and glamers are unreal, they cannot produce real effects the way that other types of illusions can. They cannot cause damage to objects or creatures, support weight, provide nutrition, or provide protection from the elements. Consequently, these spells are useful for confounding or delaying foes, but useless for attacking them directly.

Like a figment, a pattern spell creates an image that others can see, but a pattern also affects the minds of those who see it or are caught in it. All patterns are mind-affecting spells.

A phantasm spell creates a mental image that usually only the caster and the subject (or subjects) of the spell can perceive. This impression is totally in the minds of the subjects. It is a personalized mental impression. (It’s all in their heads and not a fake picture or something that they actually see.) Third parties viewing or studying the scene don’t notice the phantasm. All phantasms are mind-affecting spells.

A shadow spell creates something that is partially real from extradimensional energy. Such illusions can have real effects. Damage dealt by a shadow illusion is real.

Someone who is more well-versed than I in the workings of 3e could probably explain why all of these distinctions are necessary or how they interact with the game's other rules.

5e makes no attempt to delineate different types of illusions. As is often the case in the most current edition, the spells' individual descriptions simply say what each does in game terms - that is, whether the spell creates a sensation which can be observed by anyone (and which sensation or combination of sensations it produces) or a sensation entirely within the minds of the affected creatures, whether it can be interacted with, whether it imposes some condition, whether it can cause damage, how to overcome it, and the like. One can assign most of the 5e illusions to any of the above categories: minor illusion is a figment, disguise self is a glamer, hypnotic pattern is (isn't it obvious?) a pattern, phantasmal force is a phantasm, and creation is a shadow.

Conjuring Enchanting Illusions

Illusion is one of the more consistent schools of magic in 5e. The spells found there are about what one would expect. There are some oddballs, and they are usually spells which would fit into the latter three categories presented in 3e - patterns, phantasms, and shadows.

Patterns and phantasms are illusions which affect the mind to "create an intense reaction - fear being the most common". Sounds kind of like an enchantment, no? Examples include fear, hypnotic pattern, phantasmal killer, and weird. It makes sense to me that these spells are in the realm of illusion, because it's the images being created which cause the mental effect. Whereas enchantments affect the mind directly, illusion can affect the mind only to the extent that the target is susceptible to the illusion itself.

Fear in particular is often brought up as being an oddball. In AD&D, the wizard "sends forth an invisible cone of terror", which, yeah, that doesn't really sound like an illusion at all. But in 5e, the caster projects "a phantasmal image of a creature's worst fears". The spell affects a 30-foot cone, so presumably each creature is seeing a different image, assuming that their fears are different. I've always thought of this as being like that scene in Fellowship of the Ring where Gandalf gets really tall and bellows at Bilbo "I am not trying to rob you!" He instills fear in Bilbo, but he does it by changing the way he looks and sounds.

Shadows, on the other hand, create "something that is partially real from extradimensional energy", which sounds a lot like conjuration. The "extradimensional energy" is usually drawn from the Plane of Shadow, and is magically woven into the illusion to make it quasi-real. Conjuration, on the other hand, involves "the transportation of objects and creatures from one location to another" or the creation of "objects or effects out of nothing." Conjuration transports or creates real things - shadow magic does not (it uses extradimensional energy to make an image temporarily real). Phantom steed is shadow magic, but find steed is conjuration. Creation is shadow magic, but create food and water is conjuration.

There are a few other oddballs, like color spray, which creates "flashing, colored light", yet other spells which create light (light, daylight) are evocation, as is prismatic spray (a more notorious spray of multicolored light). 3e classifies color spray as a mind-affecting pattern, so it's meant to be similar to hypnotic pattern.

Magic mouth is also odd, since nothing in the spell's description identifies the mouth as being illusory. It can make something like a painting or a statue appear to speak, but there's nothing saying that the mouth itself isn't real. 3e classifies the spell as a glamer, so the intention is clearly for it to be a trick of light and sound, not a real mouth that is conjured or an ordinary object like a statue that is magically altered.

I was surprised to see that silence is an illusion (3e classifies it as a glamer). I could see an argument for it being an abjuration (a magical barrier that traps sound), but I suppose it makes sense as a glamer (a spell which can make something sound like something else, or, in this case, make something sound like nothing at all).

Lastly, simulacrum - this is a doozy of a spell, and I'm not going to get into the weeds on it, but basically, the caster creates "an illusory duplicate" of a creature, which is "partially real and formed from ice and snow". However, the illusory duplicate is a creature (a construct, specifically) with its own hit points and all of the abilities and statistics of the creature it is based on. 3e classifies the spell as a shadow, so I guess shadow magic is used to give the duplicate a semblance of life.

This is a spell people love to whine about. A lot of DMs don't like that a high-level caster can make an almost exact duplicate of themselves or someone else in the party. A party of all wizards (or bards, with Magical Secrets), could hypothetical double the size of their party if they all cast this spell. I think it's iconic and awesome, and something that high-level casters should be able to do. 

Besides, the spell is plenty limiting - even if a character can get their hands on all that ruby dust, how readily available is the ice and snow to make a snow man? Sounds to me like every campaign needs a calendar with distinct seasons and a system for randomly generating weather!

Real Eyes Realize Real Lies

The way in which illusions work in D&D has changed a lot throughout the editions. Most notably, there has been a great deal of consternation regarding belief in illusions. In OD&D, phantasmal forces can only do damage if "believed to be real". In AD&D, phantasmal force grants a saving throw only to creatures which "disbelieve" the illusion. Allegedly, this led to AD&D players shouting "I disbelieve!" at anything and everything they encountered, on the off chance that they were experiencing an illusion and could benefit from a saving throw.

2e cracks down on this nonsense to a reasonable extent. From Appendix 2 of the PHB:

Disbelief must be stated by the player, based on clues provided by the DM. Players stating disbelief must give a reason for disbelief based on sensory information available to the character. Failure to give such a reason results in failure to disbelieve. The DM can impose additional requirements or delays in recognizing illusions (such as Intelligence checks) as needed, such as when one player is obviously parroting a discovery made by another. Disbelief automatically forfeits a saving throw if the effect is real.

Chapter 7's section on illusions states "disbelieving is an action...and takes a round". So, shouting "I disbelieve!" at anything and everything is not exactly a foolproof strategy. It takes a full round to attempt to disbelieve an illusion (the character foregoes attacking, casting spells, and perhaps even moving or defending themselves, as they focus on the supposed illusion and attempt to see through its tricks), and if the "illusory" fireball happens to be real, the character forfeits their saving throw against it - they were too busy trying to think the fireball away, and got blasted in the face by it.

On top of all that, to even attempt to disbelieve an illusion, the player must provide the DM with some sort of logic for doing so. This is usually tied to believability, which is exhaustively detailed in Chapter 7:

The key to successful illusions or phantasms is believability, which depends on three main factors: what the caster attempts, what the victim expects, and what is happening at the moment the spell is cast.

The type of image chosen by the caster affects the reaction of the victim. ... Spellcasters are well-advised to create images of things they have seen.

The next important consideration is to ask if the spell creates something that the victim expects. ... The key to a good illusion is to create something the victim does not expect but can quickly accept.

This then leads to the third factor in the believability of an illusion, how appropriate the illusion is for the situation. ... The best illusions reinforce these expectations to your character's advantage. 

The text is littered with helpful examples for each of these three factors, which I've left out for brevity. Suffice to say, in typical 2e fashion, there's a lot of verbose advice given, which seems largely meant to help the DM adjudicate things in a way informed by "common sense".

2e also provides some guidance for situations in which some creatures are affected by illusions while their allies are not:

In many encounters, some party members will believe an illusion while others see it for what it really is. In these cases, revealing the truth to those deluded by the spell is not a simple matter of telling them. The magic of the spell has seized their minds. Considered from their point of view, they see a horrible monster (or whatever) while a friend is telling them it isn't real. They know magic can affect people's minds, but whose mind has been affected in this case? At best, having an illusion pointed out grants another saving throw with a +4 bonus.

2e also touches on Intelligence as a factor in disbelieving illusions, though it isn't very specific: 

Intelligence is the best defense against illusions. Low and nonintelligent creatures are more vulnerable to illusions, unless the illusion is completely outside their experience or the illusion touches on an area of the creatures' particular competence. 

One has to consider how this would affect an animal, such as a wolf. It has low Intelligence, but heightened senses. A wolf may be startled by the illusion of a bear, but if it doesn't smell like a bear, the illusion won't be convincing. Thus, the limits of believability must be determined by the effected creature's experience and senses.

Furthermore, creatures with sufficiently high Intelligence are immune to low-level illusions. A creature with an Intelligence of 19 is immune to 1st-level illusions, and a creature with an Intelligence of 25 is immune to 7th-level illusions.

Others have taken the idea of Intelligence as a determining factor and run with it (interestingly, this post suggests instead that low-Intelligence creatures ought to be less susceptible to illusions - they simply don't fully process them). Using Intelligence this way might be useful for DMs who don't trust themselves to be unbiased when determining whether their monsters and NPCs might reasonably come to disbelieve an illusion, or those who simply want more mechanical heft when adjudicating this sort of thing.

That brings us back to 5e, where Intelligence plays much more of a role in disbelieving illusions. Many illusions in 5e do not involve a saving throw at all.  Generally, an illusion in 5e only requires a saving throw if it can damage the target or inflict some condition (phantasmal force, fear, hypnotic pattern, phantasmal killer, dream, or weird). The saving throw has nothing to do with disbelieving the illusion, but simply resisting the illusion's effects.

Because of 5e's very literal rules language, there are spells which explicitly state conditions under which illusions are automatically revealed. Minor illusion, disguise self, silent image, major image, hallucinatory terrain, seeming, programmed illusion, and project image are all revealed to be illusions when physical contact is made.

These same spells, with the addition of phantasmal force, all allow creatures to use their action to make an Intelligence (Investigation) check to attempt to see past their illusory nature. The DC is equal to the spellcaster's spell save DC. This is, essentially, 5e's version of the "disbelieve" action. Like in 2e, a character forfeits the bulk of their turn in order to attempt to disbelieve an illusion. 

I would also use 2e's "common sense" guidelines to determine whether a check is possible in the first place - the player would have to give me some sort of justification as to why their character would disbelieve the illusion, although a player is unlikely to forfeit their turn anyway unless they have good reason. 

Similarly, if one creature has already seen through the illusion or is unaffected by it, and alerts an allied creature to its presence, I would give the affected creature advantage on their Intelligence (Investigation) check to see through it (based on 2e's suggestion of +4 to the saving throw).

I would also utilize 5e's concept of "passive" skill checks to give additional clues to players. A passive skill check value equals the characters skill check modifier plus 10. A 1st-level wizard with 16 (+3) Intelligence and proficiency in Investigation would have a an Investigation modifier of +5, and a passive Investigation score of 15. 

Thus, if this wizard encountered an illusion created by a monster or NPC with a spell save DC of 15 or less, they would "passively" notice something "off" about the effect. They would not automatically be immune to the illusion, but it would be enough to justify an Intelligence (Investigation) check to see past it on their turn (if they're willing to use their action to attempt to do so, as normal).

Scared to Death

Can illusions do damage? Is damage done by illusions "real" damage, which persists after the illusion has ended? Can illusions kill? This is probably the biggest, most confusing change in illusions from edition to edition. 

In OD&D, "Damage caused to viewers of a Phantasmal Force will be real if the illusion is believed to be real," but also, "the illusion will continue unless touched by some living creature." If the orcs believe that the phantasmal unit of archers is real, does the illusory volley of arrows "damage" the orcs, or does the illusion cease to be once the arrows touch the orcs?

In AD&D, phantasmal force explicitly does damage: "the magic-user creates a visual illusion which will affect all believing creature which view the phantasmal force, even to the extent of suffering damage". An illusionist who concentrates on the spell can cause it to "react appropriately" to contact with an opponent, allowing it to persist even after being touched. 

However, phantasmal force is a visual illusion only. I don't see how a visual illusion alone can convince the orcs that they are being fired upon with real arrows, since they wouldn't feel the arrows (or even hear them whistling through the air). Perhaps the visual component is so convincing that the target's mind tricks the orcs into believing they have taken damage? Much and more must be read between the lines.

Tom Moldvay's Basic D&D states that "[Phantasmal Force] never inflicts any real damage. Those 'killed' will pass out, those 'turned to stone' will be paralyzed, and so forth. These effects wear off in 1-4 (1d4) turns."

2e provides a broader ruling:

Illusions are spells of trickery and deceit, not damage and destruction. Thus, illusions cannot be used to cause real damage. When a creature is caught in the blast of an illusionary fireball or struck by the claws of an illusionary troll, he thinks he takes damage. The DM should record the illusionary damage (but tell the player his character has taken real damage). If the character takes enough damage to “die,” he collapses in a faint. A system shock roll should be made for the character. (His mind, believing the damage to be real, may cause his body to cease functioning!) If the character survives, he regains consciousness after 1d3 turns with his illusionary damage healed. In most cases, the character quickly realizes that it was all an illusion.

When an illusion creates a situation of inescapable death, such as a giant block dropping from the ceiling, all those believing the illusion must roll for system shock. If they fail, they die -killed by the sheer terror of the situation. If they pass, they are allowed a new saving throw with a +4 bonus. Those who pass recognize the illusion for what it is. Those who fail faint for 1d3 turns.

Illusions are a powerful thing in AD&D! In 2e, phantasmal force is a 1st-level spell, affects a 500 square-foot area - at 1st-level, plus 100 square feet per additional level! - and can create an effect which can instantly kill every creature caught within it. The limits regarding believability and the affected senses - the spell creates only a visual effect - are still present, but those don't seem particularly difficult to overcome for a savvy player.

Phantasmal killer creates an illusory 4 HD monster in the target's mind. If the illusory monster makes a successful attack roll against the target, the target dies instantly. Only one attempt to disbelieve is allowed, and the spell lasts for 1 round per level of the caster - that's a lot of attempts to instantly kill any creature!

Weird causes targeted creatures in a 20-foot radius to see "phantasmal images of their most feared enemies". Even those who successfully save versus spell are paralyzed for a round and lose 1d4 Strength for a turn (10 rounds). Those who fail have to actually fight the phantasmal creatures with an entire separate combat playing out entirely in the minds of the affected:

Actual combat must then take place, for no magical means of escape is possible. The foe fought is real for all intents and purposes; affected creatures that lose will die. If a creature's phantasmal nemesis from the weird spell is slain, the creature emerges with no damage, no loss of items seemingly used in the combat, and no loss of spells likewise seemingly expended. The creature also gains any experience for defeating the weird, if applicable.

Although each round of combat seems normal, it takes only one-tenth of a round. During the course of the spell, the caster must concentrate fully upon maintaining it.

Appendix 2 of the 2e PHB suggests some limits on what kind of phantasmal monsters can be created and how to handle their combat statistics:

Monster Special Attacks: Before the caster can effectively duplicate a monster's special attack, the wizard must have undergone it (a wizard cannot conjure up the twinkle in a medusa's eye correctly without actually experiencing it - i.e., having been turned to stone by one).

Option: Illusionary monsters attack using the wizard's attack values. This would be a subtle clue that the monsters are fake.

Option: Extend the spell level control to monsters - the caster can create monsters only if the total monster Hit Dice are equal to or less than the caster's level (an 8th-level caster could convincingly do one hill giant, two ogres, or four 2nd-level fighters).

Thus, a 20th-level wizard could force the affected creatures to face a phantasmal 20 HD very old red dragon. It's unclear to me if the affected creatures experience the phantasm together or separately - that is, would a party of affected player characters fight the phantasmal dragon as a unit, or would each of them need to battle the dragon individually?

Modern editions of D&D have simplified things, for better or worse. It is readily apparent which illusions are capable of doing damage, because they say as much. Unfortunately, the damage-dealing capability of these spells has been greatly reduced. 

In 5e, phantasmal force does 1d6 damage per round (if the target fails the initial Intelligence saving throw, if concentration is maintained, and if the target doesn't successfully disbelieve the illusion). An instant-death illusion of a falling stone block it is not, but the caster could make it look like, I don't know...individual bricks are falling from the ceiling and plunking the target on the head every round.

Another wrinkle is that the spell does 1d6 psychic damage, but the creature "perceives the damage as a type appropriate to the illusion". Since the spell allows the caster to create an effect which occupies a 10-foot cube, the caster could create an ogre and have it do what seems to be bludgeoning damage, but what ogre does 1d6 damage? 

There's also the issue of damage resistances and immunities. If a raging barbarian is resistant to bludgeoning damage but not to psychic damage, how do they react to taking phantasmal bludgeoning damage which is actually psychic damage? If I tell the player, "You take 4 bludgeoning damage" and they say "I'm resistant to bludgeoning damage, so I instead take 2 damage", do I say "Well actually, it's psychic damage" or "No, you're not resistant to this damage...for reasons." 

It's entirely unconvincing, and almost any player will see through the ruse immediately. Maybe this is a feature, rather than a bug. Maybe phantasmal force is meant to be an obvious illusion, since it is a low-level one. Maybe.

Phantasmal killer now frightens the target if they fail the initial Wisdom saving throw. Then, at the end of each of their turns, the target repeats the saving throw, taking 4d10 damage on a failed save - not even close to instantly killing most creatures at 7th-level, which is when a caster can first learn it. What's in a name?

Weird works similarly, but affects all creatures in a 30-foot-radius sphere. It still does 4d10 damage per round, despite being a 9th-level spell. Meteor swarm, by comparison, does 40d6 damage in four separate 40-foot-radius sphere. Power word kill does effectively 100 damage. Wish can do basically anything.

In the 2024 version of 5e, all three spells have received some love. Phantasmal force now does 2d8 damage per turn, phantasmal killer does the same damage but does so immediately upon a failed save (rather than requiring a second failed save), and weird does 10d10 damage initially and 5d10 damage on subsequent turns. It's a step in the right direction, but still rather underwhelming compared to what AD&D offered.

Illusionist wizards in the 2024 version will also have a few conjuration spells always prepared, which they can cast as illusions. This is similar to AD&D's idea of using illusions to create phantasmal creatures, rather than having phantasms do arbitrary damage determined by the spell. I was somewhat opposed to this at first, as it makes the Illusionist feel like a Great Value Conjurer, but the more I've read about how illusions worked in AD&D, the more I've come around to it.

I'm not sure how to feel about all of this. Clearly, the illusions of D&D's early days - with even the weakest spells having the potential to instantly kill anyone who failed a saving throw - were far to powerful, while also being nebulous enough to be entirely defanged by DM fiat and "disbelieving" players. The illusions of modern D&D are much more mechanically hard-coded - as is almost everything else in the game, at least when it comes to doing damage in combat - but feel totally lacking in potency compared to what came before.

Is there a way to split the difference? Damned if I know.

So You've Pissed Off an Illusionist

I've been running my buddy's 5e campaign as a guest DM for a month or two now. I was burned out from running my own game, and so was he, but I felt up to the task of designing a couple of quick adventures for his campaign, where the player characters are 9th-level - much more exciting than 4th-level AD&D, in my opinion.

I start planning all of my adventures by determining the primary antagonist. For this adventure, I rolled up an archmage. Because I love specialist wizards, all of my wizards have a school in which they focus their studies. For this one, I rolled a d8 and got a 6, which according to alphabetical order meant that my archmage was an illusionist.

I started to think about how to design an adventure around an adversarial illusionist, and it came to me very quickly. Really, just look at the spells available to an illusionist and think of all the trouble they can get up to.

I decided that this arch-illusionist had it out for the party - the circumstances are too specific to get into here, but there was a good reason (in the eyes of a megalomaniacal archmage, that is). Looking at the list of illusion spells I see disguise self, illusory script, Nystul's magic aura, creation, dream, seeming, project image, and others.

Here's what happened: While the party was returning to the city after their most recent adventure, they started having terrible dreams, which prevented some of them from resting, leading to accumulating levels of exhaustion (one of 5e's nastiest mechanics). 

When they got back to civilization, they found that they suddenly had a bad reputation. Shop owners had closed their doors to them, stating that the party had sold them phony goods or paid in counterfeit coins and gems. Apparently, they had forged documents to get access to a royal gala, and had angered a number of important NPCs there.

The party knew that something was amiss, and started contacting the few friends they had left in the city. The party eventually learned that people who looked exactly like them had been going around town sullying their reputation. Some people claimed to have seen the party traveling to and from a minor noble house's estate.

The party asked around and found out that this minor noble house had recently dismissed many of their servants and guards. The dismissed workers reported that the family had begun behaving strangely - they played elaborate pranks on each other and the staff, enjoyed different food and wine than usual, stopped entertaining guests, and the like.

The party went to the estate to investigate, and found that while it appeared ordinary at first glance, it was all an illusion - the estate had become a rundown frat house. Mercenary thugs were magically disguised as noble knights, goblins as the noble children, and a cabal of illusionists as the noble family. In a secret cellar, they found the real noble family locked in a cage, trapped in a magical dream state, believing themselves to be at a high society gala with the city's greatest movers and shakers.

At the center of the deception, of course, was the arch-illusionist. He appeared in every room of the house, taunting the party until they struck him, at which time he disappeared, and a magic mouth appeared to taunt them into finding him elsewhere. In AD&D style, I gave the illusionist the ability to summon phantasmal monsters for the party to fight - they could either "kill" the monsters (exhausting their resources in the process) or "disbelieve" them to determine that they were illusions (this being a master illusionist, that was no easy feat).

The party finally found the illusionist and battled an illusory dragon he had created. They cornered him, slew him, and...he melted into a pile of ice and snow. A magic mouth appeared again, swearing that they would never find him. He was everyone, and no one. He could be anywhere he wished, and when next they found him, it wouldn't be him at all. Since the party had overcome his house of illusions, he made a gentleman's agreement to let bygones be bygones, but he warned them - he would be watching.

And that is the power of illusionist. They can be anyone. They can make someone see, hear, smell, taste, or feel anything. They can make themselves appear anywhere - even in someone's dreams. The illusionist can force someone to battle enemies that aren't there, trap them in a prison within their own mind, or scare them to death. When the illusionist finally shows up, it might not be them at all. And just like that, they're gone.