D&D 5E Official D&D Basic Discussion Thread

[Rod Staffwand]

I am by no means young enough to be of the Harry Potter generation, but if 5e's new options means my foppish wizard doesn't have to carry around bat guano, count me in.

I am of two minds about spell chapter organization. Lumping the spells together alphabetically is a big help with a quick look up: spell chapter --> spell. Otherwise you have to go: spell chapter --> spell casting class --> spell level --> spell, which is a bit more cumbersome. On the other hand, when you just want to select a new spell after a level up or want to compare spells of the same level, grouping spells by class and level is a huge benefit. I guess they prioritized quick lookup as it's more useful in play when time is more valuable.

I think short rests should be addressed in errata to make the meaning more explicit. If they intend a "choose your own way to play" they should explicitly list the options. For the most part the basic set has some of the clearest written rules I've read in a long time, making things like short rests stand out even more. In a well-written ruleset there should never be arguments over what a rule means, or how to implement it, only whether it achieves its intended purpose or not.

 

[Agamon]

I am of two minds about spell chapter organization. Lumping the spells together alphabetically is a big help with a quick look up: spell chapter --> spell. Otherwise you have to go: spell chapter --> spell casting class --> spell level --> spell, which is a bit more cumbersome. On the other hand, when you just want to select a new spell after a level up or want to compare spells of the same level, grouping spells by class and level is a huge benefit. I guess they prioritized quick lookup as it's more useful in play when time is more valuable.

This is my view of it, too. I prefer it this way because it makes for a better read and easier to find during play. But yeah, there will be page flipping when choosing a new spell. As far as Basic goes, hopefully there is bookmarking in the pdf once it's final to help with that.

I think short rests should be addressed in errata to make the meaning more explicit. If they intend a "choose your own way to play" they should explicitly list the options. For the most part the basic set has some of the clearest written rules I've read in a long time, making things like short rests stand out even more. In a well-written ruleset there should never be arguments over what a rule means, or how to implement it, only whether it achieves its intended purpose or not.

While I personally find it fine as is, this statement makes sense and is tough to argue (and such on this topic are in short supply in this thread). So I sure wouldn't be opposed to it, like I would if they changed it to be definitively one way or another. Well said.

 

[Venthrac]

As a physicist who has gamed mostly with other physicists, I can assure you all that the correct hand-wavey answer to this issue is "boundary conditions" and "to first order" followed by a hard stare.

Relevant details for the unconvinced might include non-spherical sources, locally-approximate plane waves, different dissipation/dispersion relations for longitudinal vs. transverse propagation, and flippin' magic.

This guy wins.

 

[Grazzt]

Nope.

Thaumaturge.

Yep. Agree. Luckily my players aren't ones to try and play the "rules don't say we can't chain short rests". So no worries here. If it ever became an issue, I can solve it myself.

Me: As the smoke clears you see a rather large demonic figure; a balor.

ShortRestChainingGuy: A balor!!!!!! But we're only 2nd level!!!!

Me: This shouldn't take too long then. Roll initiative.

 

[the Jester]

I think short rests should be addressed in errata to make the meaning more explicit.

Please, no. Let's not errata every questionable line of text this edition. Let's keep errata to a minimum and only use it when it's actually important. The endless errata train is a highly negative thing, and for something where the dm can simply rule how it works in his game, I really think errata is... excessive.

To repeat: Please, no errata except to fix things that badly need fixing.

 

[fba827]

Please, no. Let's not errata every questionable line of text this edition. Let's keep errata to a minimum and only use it when it's actually important. The endless errata train is a highly negative thing, and for something where the dm can simply rule how it works in his game, I really think errata is... excessive.

To repeat: Please, no errata except to fix things that badly need fixing.

Agreed, since some tables can resolve it with table agreement, I think a FAQ should suffice to address it for those that want guidance for their table's ruling.

 

[Hussar]

Agreed, since some tables can resolve it with table agreement, I think a FAQ should suffice to address it for those that want guidance for their table's ruling.

To be fair, I could see this being something of an issue at Organized Play events. But, then again, I'm fairly sure they will have additional guidelines for organised play, same as always.

 

[caudor]

Please, no. Let's not errata every questionable line of text this edition. Let's keep errata to a minimum and only use it when it's actually important. The endless errata train is a highly negative thing, and for something where the dm can simply rule how it works in his game, I really think errata is... excessive.

To repeat: Please, no errata except to fix things that badly need fixing.

This ^ As they say...'Errata! Errata!?! We don't need no stinking errata!'

 

[Morlock]

Another nit...and I know there are plenty of people that prefer it the way it is...and I know [or at least it seems] it is the norm for just about all fantasy games (including OSR ones, oddly enough)...but it's something I simply do not like or think is in any way "better"...

The strictly alphabetical spell list. Cleric and MU spells all listed together, A-to-Z. No sorting by class. No sorting by spell level. Just makes me mad (i.e. "crazy" mad, not "angry" mad). It's a purely preference thing. I just don't like it.

Put my cleric spells all together, in one section. List all of the 1st level spells, all together, alphabetically. Then all of my 2nd level spells. Then the 3rd. etc...Then the MU/arcane spells. Start with level 1, alphabetically. Then my level 2's. etc. etc... I shouldn't need to become familiar with 100+ pages of spell descriptions straight out the gate. Sure, I'll read them for fun. But for my 1st, 2nd, 3rd, level PC, I have these 2 or 3 or 5 pages to deal with...and that's it. Everything I need, that I might be casting (until I get into higher levels/using a bunch of spell levels) is there in those few pages.

The spells are listed, always and often in multiple places, by their spell level...then, we're basically told, go find it among these 100+ pages? It's just one of those things that has been changed in the game that doesn't make sense [never did to me].

This has always confounded me as well. I started with BECMI, then 1e, and that spell organization still seems most intuitive to me. I can understand why they made the change, though.

 

[doghead]

So I downloaded the Basic Rules a couple of hours ago and skimmed though it.

I can't say I had a particularly strong response (positive or negative) either way. I found reading though some of the threads here (things l like, things I didn't, how is this different from X Edition?) more useful. So thank you to all those who took the time to share their insights and thoughts.

I returned to role play gaming around the time 3rd Edition was transitioning into 3.5ED. I never made the move to 4th Edition, staying with 3.5/PF initially. More recently I have been trying some of the alternatives like DCC and Dungeon World. I haven't paid much attention to the 5th Edition discussions nor looked at any of the materials.

The new rules do look quite promising however. There seems to have been an effort to keep them simple and streamlined (Yay!), and pretty much easily recognisable to people who have played D&D before. If they add some monsters to the basic rules (which I understand is the plan), then I think that next time I am looking to start a new game, I will consider using them.

I may have just rejoined the D&D fold.

thotd