D&D 5E PHB first look

[Jeff Carlsen]

When Mearls described the plan for basic, standard, and advanced, The PHB represented standard. Basic was a subset thereof, and Advanced was the various rules modules that we now know are part of the DMG. It seems sensible to continue to use that pattern. Which also means we don't have the advanced rules.

 

[Neikron]

I had thought the same thing initially, too. Especially while reading over the same content, word for word.

After having some time to digest it, it kind of made some sense to introduce players in (or welcoming players back), and actually give them good, complete content for free.

I have introduced some players and they really appreciated the content of the Basic Rules, where the beginner set wouldn't have been quite enough. They, being new to the hobby, do not care to spend $50+ on a book right off the bat. At least, not without having digested some of the Basic Rules to see if it's something they really want to keep going with.

Anyway, those are just my thoughts. I may be way off base.

 

[Raith5]

Sorry, this wasn't a whiney "fighters can't have nice things" thread until your reply made it so. The comparison was between Basic vs PHB and that's what I answered. And there are all kinds of 'advanced' options across all classes with what's provided in the PHB. All that's needed is creativity and imagination.

Sorry I was not meaning my post to come across as having a go at you or the 5e rules. I think they look really interesting in both their basic and PHB versions.

It just seems to me that the shift from the basic to the PHB has greatly expanded wizards and clerics but fighters less so. Because the notion of advanced has not been clearly spelt out by WOTC it is somewhat in the eye of the beholder and I could imagine a person wanting an advanced fighter experience saying 'where are my options'?

 

[MoonSong]

Sorry I was not meaning my post to come across as having a go at you or the 5e rules. I think they look really interesting in both their basic and PHB versions.

It just seems to me that the shift from the basic to the PHB has greatly expanded wizards and clerics but fighters less so. Because the notion of advanced has not been clearly spelt out by WOTC it is somewhat in the eye of the beholder and I could imagine a person wanting an advanced fighter experience saying 'where are my options'?

But it has been clearly spelled out, more than a year ago in L&L. I would look for links but I'm in a hurry and need to go.

 

[mips42]

Pretty much what I think I'm hearing was 'your expectations were off' which is fine. I'll continue to look it over and love it for what it is instead of being unhappy for what it's not.
play on!

 

[Raith5]

But it has been clearly spelled out, more than a year ago in L&L. I would look for links but I'm in a hurry and need to go.

I cant find the links either since the WOTC site redevelopment. But the standard/advanced difference would be clearer and more meaningful if it were discussed in the actual D&D books rather than in a L&L post.

 

[SkidAce]

Use this

Legend and Lore Archives http://archive.wizards.com/dnd/Archive.aspx?category=all&subcategory=legendslore

 

[DMZ2112]

Advanced D&D will be mixing and remixing stuff from the DMG in order to fiddle and customize as much as you want. The PHB, that is just the STANDARD game. No need to expect anyhting advanced out of it.

When Mearls described the plan for basic, standard, and advanced, The PHB represented standard. Basic was a subset thereof, and Advanced was the various rules modules that we now know are part of the DMG. It seems sensible to continue to use that pattern. Which also means we don't have the advanced rules.

Just wanted to drop a quick QFT in here.

The Basic Rules are "basic" D&D, and are a (free) subset of the (premium) "standard" D&D provided in the PHB. It's not yet clear whether all or only some of the DMG will be presented as 'variant rules,' but in any case, playing the game with the DMG will be "advanced" D&D, 'variant' or no.

This isn't a matter for doubt or debate; both Wizards and ENWorld have been using this terminology in this fashion for months. This confusion is surplus to requirements.

 

[Queer Venger]

I got my first look at the PHB today and I was a bit surprised and, in a way, sad at how much of Basic is straight out of the PHB. In a way, I was hoping for more advanced options from "Advanced" D&D. As much as I like 5e, and that's a LOT, overall I'm underwhelmed at the PHB (again, first looks).

Its really too bad you feel this way. I, on the other hand, feel the opposite. I feel that the PHB is the 'prestige editon' of the rules while the basic pdf is a handy tool to have on my tablet, phone or to print and pass around for players.

Its essentially the same thing, sans art, which for me, is the real gem of the PHB (and btw, never has a PHB looked this incredibly stunning).

 

[MoonSong]

I'm beginning to think it was a poor choice of words to describe the tiers of play as basic, standard, and advanced. I understand why they picked basic and advanced, they have some nostalgia creed with the most established players. But they also bring with them some unwanted baggage that hinders discussion and even communication, not to mention confusion.(And it distracts from the discussion of the standard game as a standard)
Just one example, I've seen more than one poster in enworld and the playground consider phb=advanced, ergo the phb must be 60% optional and full of modules and everything not in basic is strictly optional. (Truth, phb = standard, and while you can decide in your own table game to deliberately ban 60% of it, the purpose is you use it mostly as a unit and it contains nothing that wildly changes gameplay.)

I think this is one case were a less retro approach would have flown better. Or if they really needed to use advanced and basic, name and advertise advanced as standard and name what is now advanced something else (expanded? evolved?)