D&D 5E 5B & 5A, and 5s? The excluded third everybody is forgetting about!.

[MoonSong]

Recently I've been thinking about how my attitude towards the new edition shifted so drastically over the past month. How I went form overly enthusiastic to severely concerned this edition is turning into chosing between a DM dictatorship or a very restricted bland core. But then I noticed the reason, everybody in these boards completely forgot one little and important detail: this edition is not just Basic and Advanced!.

Basic.- The free rules covering 4 races, 4 classes, 4 backgrounds. These are the only thing the designers can take into account when building adventures and modules. DMs can allow material from the PHB at their entire discretion.

Advanced.- The DMs paradise, tinker as much as you want and restrict as much as you want. This will need the DMG to play.

Yes that is right, Advanced won't be here until the DMG shows up, the PHB instead will give us the STANDARD game. (Yes Basic is the baseline for adventure writing, but not the standard)

Standard.- A compromise, DMs can make as many rulings as they wish, and this is completely compatible with basic. But standard consists of a set amount of rules and character options that are unalienable -what the advanced mindset calls entitlement but which isn't misplaced in a standard environment-. The material Adventurer's league and organized play will be made of.

And I think this is the main reason there are so many conflicting visions on the game and the heart of the most heated discussions on the edition. A sizeable portion of posters in here complain about the lack of definition in rules while the rest just keeps coming up with "But ask your DM!", the former group is right to demand what it is demanding because they are in Standard mentality, and the later group is right to answer what they are answering because they are in the Basic/Advanced mindset. None of them are actually wrong, just misplaced. There is a lack of information leading to confusion. And I bet that as we near the release of the phb we will know more about the standard game.

So maybe the next time when someone starts a new thread it could be good to explain where are they comming from in the Standard/Advanced divide.

 

[Arctic Wolf]

I would have to agree with you on this. The way the game is in the Basic version doesn't apply to me to much. It is difinately interesting but I am more curious what the PHB and other books will bring to the table so much judgment is reserved at least until then.

 

[the Jester]

Standard.- A compromise, DMs can make as many rulings as they wish, and this is completely compatible with basic. But standard consists of a set amount of rules and character options that are unalienable -what the advanced mindset calls entitlement but which isn't misplaced in a standard environment-.

I don't completely agree, KaiiLurker. I don't think anything in the PH will be "unalienable", if by that you mean the DM has to allow it. In a home game, especially, 5e really encourages the DM and the group to make the game their own. The PH isn't all or nothing, though I'll allow that organized play is a likely exception, but even it isn't clearly "standard", as I think I can illustrate.

I think you're right that people are overlooking the middle ground between the Basic 5e game and the full-on tinkerer's paradise that the advanced modules in the DMG will allow. However, I don't agree that anything in the PH is must-be-allowed outside of the context of standard play. Not only that, I don't think there's going to be a real distinction between basic and standard play, nor between basic and advanced play. For example, what would you call a game that used everything in the PH except for a fighter option that included damage on a miss? What about everything except for one class, say monks? What about everything except for feats? What about a game that used the Basic rules, but an alternate healing module from the DMG? Heck, what about a game that used only the Basic rules but alternate modules for healing, spell points and, say, one that makes alignment mechanically important?

For that matter, what if you use the Basic rules but include modules that, rather than changing any rules per se, add systems such as domain rulership and mass combat?

I would be shocked if we didn't see adventures that use things like mass combat at some point (likely including the necessary rules in the adventure text). So there we would have organized play stepping outside of the PH rules and into DMG modules. Now, it's possible that we will never see this happen, but I think it's extremely unlikely, especially as 5e seems to focus pretty hard on adventures and story, and a lot of great D&D and fantasy stories end up with clashing armies involved at one point or another. It's not for everyone, but it polled very strongly as a desired 5e module and we already know that at least the mass combat rules have seen some development- enough that they've been semi-previewed on the WotC site. I totally admit that I may be wrong, but I strongly suspect that we'll see an adventure with some DMG content included within a year or so of the DMG's release.

I really think that trying to define a given 5e game as basic, advanced or standard is a very muddy prospect, with the single exception of the most absolute case- the one where the only resource in use is the Basic rules.

 

[Raith5]

I hope you are right and if it is the case I wish that WOTC were more up front about it.

But I think Basic is better thought of a marketing device - and I dont mean that as a backhanded put down. Its primary job is to lift the profile of the D&D game and act as a gateway to new and lapsed gamers. While I am not part of these groups, I think it is has done a good job at this. But I am not sure it is wholly contained replacement for an OSR game. I would be interested to know how many OSR gamers would be happy with playing a whole campaign based on 5e basic.

For my own part, despite seeing it as a good basic game, I was struck by how many 3e and especially 4e isms have crept into my thinking about how I judge RPGs (despite the flaws of these editions). I now think of wizards/spell casters rolling all their attacks (and getting crits!), action points, magical implements and fighters with various cool manoeuvres as basic (umm..)/fundamental part of D&D. I hope and expect to see some of these elements in Advanced.

 

[GX.Sigma]

I never liked the "Basic, Standard, Advanced" terminology. I always thought it should be Basic, Advanced, Expert or something like that. Calling one of them "Standard" implies that one is more acceptable than the others.

 

[Melfast]

DND Terminology and New Players

I never liked the "Basic, Standard, Advanced" terminology. I always thought it should be Basic, Advanced, Expert or something like that. Calling one of them "Standard" implies that one is more acceptable than the others.

GX --

I think they're thinking that the "Basic, Standard, Advanced" terminology is likely more approachable for new players who may be intimidated by the term "Advanced", and that "Standard" is also useful for establishing the baseline for organized play.

Their adventure modules will all likely be built expecting a Standard set of rules, and players will be able to easily use them for Basic by not using some options in Standard, and to easily hack them for Advanced by adding optional rules like a grid with its associated more tactical play.

Also, it lets them sell the "Standard" game instead of having the first purchase coming for "Advanced" rules.

May not work out that way, but I think its likely.

Melfast

 

[Thaumaturge]

I think you, broadly speaking, have an interesting point. In the PH(B) there will be many more rules than in 5B. Many of them will be under the "variant" heading, but many of them won't be. There will be a more complicated base game than 5B presented. A table playing 5B and a table using the PH(B) with no variant rules would be playing slightly different games.

But standard consists of a set amount of rules and character options that are unalienable -what the advanced mindset calls entitlement but which isn't misplaced in a standard environment-. The material Adventurer's league and organized play will be made of.

But we shouldn't judge 5S by Adventurers League standards. We already know feats are more optional in this edition. Mearls also confirmed Adventurers League characters have access to feats, so AL play won't be strictly 5s. I assume.

Thaumaturge.

 

[jrowland]

This is something I've been noticing as well. I don't think we, as a community, fully realize the implications of 5E. We are still thinking in terms of prior editions. 5E breaks that in may ways. 5B is the core mechanic, and it is the only unifying mechanic. Everything else is optional in many ways (like excluding monks from your table, or using exploding dice crits, eg) This will mean most tables are very different from each other.

AL will use as a baseline 5s, only because most people involved in D&D beyond curious or casual will use PHB classes and feats (I doubt variant sidebars will be assumed in AL) in some form or another.

It truly will be YOUR GAME, YOUR WAY in ways previous editions were not, and yet...strangely enough, compatible across tables! I could have a fully modified 5A game (with all sorts of PHB variants and DMG options) and someone could bring their Starter set pre-made to the table and fit right in. The converse might be odd: ie a full-on 5B table and a player brings a PHB variant with DMG optioned character...but I think if a DM did allow it, it would work out well enough (caveat that other players might be pissed!)

 

[I'm A Banana]

Basic D&D is Core.

Everything else is optional.

Some options will likely get used a lot. Some options will find a home at almost anyone's table.

But those options are still options.

 

[MoonSong]

Basic D&D is Core.

Everything else is optional.

Some options will likely get used a lot. Some options will find a home at almost anyone's table.

But those options are still options.

I don't really think this is the case(these are more than a year old, and I don't know how they hold to the current plans, but I don't think they will by much):

http://wizards.com/DnD/Article.aspx?x=dnd/4ll/20130107
http://wizards.com/DnD/Article.aspx?x=dnd/4ll/20130114
http://wizards.com/DnD/Article.aspx?x=dnd/4ll/20130122
http://wizards.com/DnD/Article.aspx?x=dnd/4ll/20130128

I feel that stating "Basic is core", "Basic is core, everything else optional" as a mantra is demeaning of certain playstyles and can alienate certain kind of players. I believe things won't be as simplistic, and that this will be closer to: Basic is core, for basic players, standard will be core for standard players, Advanced won't have a core, but defaults to Basic since to an Advanced player standard is yet another set of options, still deprecating standard is mean to some point, because there are players that want and/or need it. This is a big tent edition no need to make others feel like second-rate players. I know talking about the standard isn't as sexy to the average enworlder as talking about this cool triumphal return of Basic or the endless possibilities of advanced, but it has a place.