"The basic mechanics include movement, combat, ability checks and casting spells." That isn't what Mearls said, though. I would really like to know why, because without them mechanics for interaction with the world outside combat consist solely of spells. I do not consider that reasonable. I would in fact consider it reasonable only if there were no spells with non-combat applications, and all classes were in the same position.
-
The VOIDRUNNER'S CODEX is coming! Explore new worlds, fight oppressive empires, fend off fearsome aliens, and wield deadly psionics with this comprehensive boxed set expansion for 5E and A5E!
D&D 5E 2/11/13 L&L: This week in D&D
- Thread starter Blackwarder
- Start date
"The basic mechanics include movement, combat, ability checks and casting spells." That isn't what Mearls said, though. I would really like to know why, because without them mechanics for interaction with the world outside combat consist solely of spells. I do not consider that reasonable. I would in fact consider it reasonable only if there were no spells with non-combat applications, and all classes were in the same position.
But he did say "stuff like movement combat and casting spells" (my emphasis), and he also talked about the GM making "lots of calls and judgments". Given that the ability check as a basic tool for GM calls and judgements goes back at least to B/X, it would be pretty odd not to see it mentioned.
And ability checks are part of combat - without more detailed rules, for instance, a grab or a knockback is going to be a STR check, isn't it?
And ability checks are part of combat - without more detailed rules, for instance, a grab or a knockback is going to be a STR check, isn't it?
ZombieRoboNinja
First Post
Just to be clear, last we heard the Basic game was going to let each class have "training" in all checks with one ability - eg fighters add their skill die to all str checks. So the skill system is sort of there in skeletal form - certainly enough for a stripped-down game like Basic (which, remember, has only four classes and very limited character options on top of simplified rules).
Also, In the latest podcast they said the classes they're thinking of releasing soon are the ranger, paladin and Druid, I believe. They mentioned the races too but I forget - half orcs and half elves I think?
Also, In the latest podcast they said the classes they're thinking of releasing soon are the ranger, paladin and Druid, I believe. They mentioned the races too but I forget - half orcs and half elves I think?
Iosue
Legend
Yeah, this. OD&D has three books: Men & Magic (chargen, leveling, spells), Monsters & Treasure (monsters and treasure), and the Underworld & Wilderness, which is all about dungeoncrawling and hex-mapping. And virtually all modules that were released in the OD&D era were dungeons. To say it didn't care is widely missing the mark.
I'm A Banana
Potassium-Rich
Yeah, I gotta take that back. OD&D had a whole booklet about it. 1e was pretty rich with similar detail. 2e was a little more abstract in this regard, lacking hexes, using "narrative time" to skip the travel distances, etc. 3e improved on that bit, but wasn't fundamentally much different. 4e was more like 2e in only really worrying about travel if you opted into it.
So I'd say it was more kind of like 4e (which still has skill challenges and rations!)< 2e < BEMCI < 3e < OD&D < 1e. Roughly.
TerraDave
5ever, or until 2024
I am pretty sure: Basic=Core.
"The basic rules cover the absolute core of the game"...."Here's a bullet-point list of the goal of the basic, core rules"
EDIT: Also "I'd like the core rules boiled down to about 16 pages, not counting class-specific material."
http://www.wizards.com/DnD/Article.aspx?x=dnd/4ll/20130114
But...he does at points refer to "standard core" and "basic core" in other articles. Still, what the play-test is the standard rules, not just the basic rules, and it has non-combat rules. Mostly through skills. They are there.
Last edited:
Libramarian
Adventurer
I was thinking of the GM-focused stuff. I have this fear that they're going to respond to the mixed reception of 4e's GM-focused stuff by...not having any in DDN, instead of developing different suites of tools and advice for different styles of play.
Or the GM advice will be very basic and wishy-washy, i.e. boiled down to the commonalities between all the editions.
Yes, that's what Core is now, in 5E. The Basic game.
But my point is that when people here on ENWorld now talk about the "core game"... it seems like they're usually THINKING about the stuff that was in the 3E/4E Core game. They're mistakenly believing 5E Core includes the same stuff. But it's not. That stuff is in the Standard game.
So when someone says "We're working on the Core... the combat and movement..." people are freaking out because in their mind they're equating Core with 5E's Standard game. And in that case... the Standard game that did not have them working on rules for stuff like exploration or interaction would yes, be disheartening if it was true.
But it's not true. Because what they think Core is, IS NOT what the Core is. Core = Basic game. And since in Basic game most non-combat stuff is just ability checks and/or DM ADJUDICATION (ie no "rules" per se)... the fact that they aren't focused on it shouldn't be a problem. Skills are NOT Core... IE NOT Basic game.
When Mike and the others finally say at some point "Yeah, we're working heavily on the Standard rules set... you know... combat and movement"... THEN people can rightly freak out.
