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

[Bugleyman]

I like Basic overall, but the PDF needs a quick revision to fix a few bugs:

• The version # is all over the place
• The pages numbers are backwards -- that is, in a printed copy the page numbers end up near the spine, rather on the outer edge of the page
• Rather than releasing a separate printer-friendly PDF, release a single layered PDF and put the background texture in a separate layer

Minor bugs aside, this is a very promising beginning. I love the direction they're taking with Basic, and I will definitely be picking up the core books when they become available.

 

[tuxgeo]

All races have had their abilities substantially beefed up compared to earlier editions, but I think that once the PHB is released, humans will emerge as the standout race, for much the same reason they did in 3E: Bonus feat plus bonus skill = win. . . .

Likewise in 4E, also: bonus feat and bonus skill for Humans.

(And didn't 3E use "bonus skill points" instead of a "bonus skill?")

 

[Thaumaturge]

Also Remarkable Athlete? Only think Remarkable about is how utterly terrible it is. Half (so +1 or +2 until you're level 17!) your Proficiency bonus ONLY if you don't otherwise get that bonus, on STR/DEX/CON rolls where you ALMOST CERTAINLY get that bonus because you have Athletics... Oh and a crummy bonus to running long jumps! /facepalm I guess I can see why we're going to need magic items and spells if our supposedly "Remarkable" abilities are that weak! Indomitable also got nerfed in the face. Second Wind continues to be a problem guaranteed to get house-ruled in perhaps most games.

I was reading through 5B again, and I saw wording that I actually remember you pointing out (it could have been someone else, though):

When combat starts, every participant makes a Dexterity check to determine their place in the initiative order

Remarkable Athlete gives a half bonus in initiative rolls (Dex checks). It's not something to start a parade for, but it is a nice bonus. As I think about it, Remarkable Athlete will also come into play with spells, like Web that call for unspecified checks: Web call for a Str check to escape. I think Remarkable Athlete might have more benefit than it appears to have at first.

Thaumaturge.

 

[Tony Semana]

This was explicitly addressed by Mearls in the Q and A, the game is not being written for theorycrafters who want desperately to break it or people who want to argue on the internet about hypotheticals. It is written for players and DMs who play it to have fun. Reasonable, average players will have no problem with this and not using it in a non-intuitive way. To heck with everyone else.

This bug only exists between the character sheet and the chair. Someone at the table who insisted on making a big deal about would not be someone I would want to hang out with let alone spend a lot of time and effort playing games with. Consider it a blessing, it identifies min/maxing pedantic rules lawyers so you can avoid them.

Yes, 100 times. This. We're no longer flogging a dead horse, we're hunting down every last acquaintance of the horse's family members... STAHP!!!

 

[Dausuul]

(And didn't 3E use "bonus skill points" instead of a "bonus skill?")

It amounted to the same thing most of the time. The number of skill points given was exactly enough to max out one skill, and (IME) that was what most players did with it.

I think of it as "One extra skill, which you can break into pieces if you really want to."

 

[occam]

Remarkable Athlete gives a half bonus in initiative rolls (Dex checks). It's not something to start a parade for, but it is a nice bonus.

Now that's actually pretty cool.

 

[Venthrac]

So ranged attacks made with spells and weapons have disadvantage when there's a foe within 5 feet of the attacker who is not incapacitated and who can see the attacker.

I don't remember this rule being in the playtest. Did I just miss it?

That is kind of huge. It gives characters a way to really hinder enemy casters and archers. I love it. If I had any gripe about 5E during the playtest it was that spell-casters seemed to dish out a lot of damage and there were no attacks of opportunity to discourage them. Nice to finally have some kind of deterrent in the rules.

However, I wish the rule had been worded differently, because enemies that have reach should not need to be within 5 feet to distract the spellcaster.

 

[Nagol]

So ranged attacks made with spells and weapons have disadvantage when there's a foe within 5 feet of the attacker who is not incapacitated and who can see the attacker.

I don't remember this rule being in the playtest. Did I just miss it?

That is kind of huge. It gives characters a way to really hinder enemy casters and archers. I love it. If I had any gripe about 5E during the playtest it was that spell-casters seemed to dish out a lot of damage and there were no attacks of opportunity to discourage them. Nice to finally have some kind of deterrent in the rules.

However, I wish the rule had been worded differently, because enemies that have reach should not need to be within 5 feet to distract the spellcaster.

And casters can cast a spell with no attack roll -- victims don't get advantage on their saving throws.

 

[Lanefan]

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].

Thing is, if they were listed the way you want it'd take them a lot more paper and-or you a lot more time, here's why:

Quite a few spells, at least in all previous editions, have in fact been the same spell castable by different classes at (maybe) different levels. To list them the way you want they either have to repeat the full write-up of the spell for every class-level combination it appears in (taking way more total page space) *or* have each occurrence of the spell after the first one say "see write-up under [first occurrence]" which still takes a bit more paper but takes you a lot more time as you flip back and forth trying to find the write-up you want. (the 1e PH does the latter a lot, much to my and others' annoyance)

I don't mind the all-in list for the full write-ups, as long as there's a table showing what class-levels get what spells.

Lanefan

 

[Lanefan]

So ranged attacks made with spells and weapons have disadvantage when there's a foe within 5 feet of the attacker who is not incapacitated and who can see the attacker.

...

However, I wish the rule had been worded differently, because enemies that have reach should not need to be within 5 feet to distract the spellcaster.

Simple house rule: replace "5 feet" with "reach" and you're gold.

I'd make another change, however: "...when there's a foe with intellgence higher than 2 within..." as something mindless e.g. a Zombie isn't going to have enough smarts to intentionally disrupt the shooter, particularly if the shooter has friends nearby and the Zombie has to make a choice.

Lan-"eternity can be defined as the length of time it takes a Zombie to make a decision"-efan