D&D 5E 5e Basic Rules poll

[Thaumaturge]

Are you serious? Bagpipes are 30 gold pieces and weigh 6 pounds? This ruins the verisimilitude. How can I enjoy this game? How can anyone enjoy this game?

No kidding. Mike Mearls can name-check Celtic deities in an appendix of the PH(B) as much as he wants (which he does) . He's clearly out to destroy all Celtic-themed characters and campaign settings with this edition.

Thaumaturge.

 

[mach1.9pants]

tangentially related to this poll, and a good point, from Rob Conley. 5E will be a lot of peoples favourite game and/or version of D&D "but serve equally well as a second favorite system. One that creates a common ground for fans of various editions to meet at conventions or game store and share a good adventure."
I agree with this, there is obviously a long way to go to make everyone happy, but I think WotC have hit the nail as best they can to make 5E, if not your fave D&D, at least one you are happy to play.

http://batintheattic.blogspot.co.nz/2014/07/breaking-down-dnd-basic-part-1.html

 

[The Black Ranger]

So far the game seems "okay". It's not bad, but it definitely isn't a show stopper. I felt this way during the play test and still feel this way now. I can't quite put my finger on why.

 

[The Hitcher]

I haven't had a chance to read it in any detail, and the proof will of course be in the pudding. But basically: it's wonderful.

They done fixed D&D

 

[Greg K]

I didn't vote. I neither love it, nor hate it. There are some good ideas, and it's mostly a good game, but there are too many dealbreakers for me to buy it.

Add another "This" except that I think it is just ok. I see a few good things that are unexpected changes from the playtest, but at the moment, too many things are turning me off from the game.

 

[howandwhy99]

For me, design-wise and philosophically 5e is better than 4th, different but on par with 3rd, worse than any D&D prior to 2000.

This is not old school D&D, it's 4e mark II. It's another try at making Dungeons & Dragons a Big Model Forge-derived storytelling game.

The rules are interesting in places. For instance, they put Age into Races, include player-directed exploration and discovery (under Finding a Hidden Object), and have a very detailed Exhaustion table. Not to mention a few interesting spell / magic system rules.

EDIT:
The really bad part for me was the Introduction. They still lie about D&D being group storytelling and about not playing a game (deciphering the pattern of a ruleset to achieve a goal).

 

[howandwhy99]

One more interesting bit was level progression rates.

XP Required For Each Level
Level	XP	Increase (or decrease) 
1	0	- 
2	300	-
3	600	100%
4	1800	200%
5	3800	110%
6	7500	97%
7	9k	20%
8	11k	20%
9	14k	27%
10	16k	14%
11	21k	31%
12	15k	-29%
13	20k	33%
14	20k	0
15	25k	25%
16	30k	20%
17	30k	0
18	40k	33%
19	40k	0
20	50k	25%

The progression moving from 1 thru 6 is odd, then flattens until becoming wavy from 10-12 even going backwards for one level, and then largely becomes somewhat regularly stepped in the teens.


Also, I was wondering what they were going to do with the Confusion condition. They left this out?

 

[MoonSong]

Fair enough. Out of curiosity, are the deal breakers baked in too much or could they be house ruled out? I realize that a bunch of house ruling means you might as well play a different game to get the experience you want, so why pay for something just to change it all up.

Well in my one personal case, the assumed houseruling is the dealbreaker

just to get a feel of Enworlder response so far. I did not include a middle ground, but the "reserve judgement" could double for that....you're not convinced either way yet.

Again speaking personally, it isn't I love it or hate it, but it ain't I haven't made up my mind yet either. I like the evocative lore, but the rules themselves fall straight into "meh" territory. It is pretty hard to do wrong just the big four.

I skimmed the basic rules, and like what I see overall. Been playing since '84.

Sure, there's stuff I'd change if DMing it. But what struck me about 5e is its compatibility. I see no problem in using a 1e or 2e surprise/initiative, or even changing it based on circumstance - size of battle and sofoth - I can throw in my simplified weapon vs. AC, and tone down the frequency of advantage mechanics with previous editions, or on the fly rulings. I already use free cantrips and open multiclassing.

I disagree with the notion of "if you're going to houserule it, why bother", at least personally. I remakn interested because I have never played any D&D btb. The very notion of that seems alien to me. But 5e looks like a strong, versatile base from which to play this game I love, informed and enhanced by the richness that has come before.

I'm also interested in 5e because some younger gamers are. It's ok with me if some think 1e is hokey or too much like jazz. I want to see the hobby survive and flourish, and not fall into generational cliques.

It isn't as much "if you are going to houserule it why bother?" as "if you need to rely on the generosity of strangers too much, perhaps other game will require less energy fed into it". I'm not worried at all about houseruling myself when I'm DMing, that is the easy part. What worries me is finding a DM that will have a set of rules compatible with my playstyle. The more specific something is, the more limited use it has.

I don't love it or hate it. It seems like a tolerable game with some really good ideas and some bad ideas but there's no one thing compelling enough for me to spend money.

I'm on a similar camp. I wouldn't mind running it, but I don't love it as a player. What will make it or break it for me will be 1) the PHB having the right options for me, and 2) the community being receptive enough for me to be able to actually get to play what I want. Sadly I'm not too optimistic about either of them being what I need out of the game, though I still harbor some naive hope.

 

[Elf Witch]

I am on the fence until I actually have a good chance to sit down and play with the rules. What I played with the playtesting left me with just a meh feeling. But I think it will be hard to truly judge until I see the final rules in play.

 

[The Choice]

EDIT:
The really bad part for me was the Introduction. They still lie about D&D being group storytelling and about not playing a game (deciphering the pattern of a ruleset to achieve a goal).

That's not even close to any working definition of the word "game", much less "role-playing
game". It encompasses, at best, a fraction of the experience.

There are, in fact, games that have no recognizable, predictable patterns. And several
role-playing games eschew such elements to one degree or another (1st edition AD&D being
one of them.

But on this thread's particular topic : the core framework of the game is poor, but some
decent bits of rules design are hanging on it (I like the purity of advantage/disadvantage
as a concept, but it clashes with the bag of miscelaneous +1s floating around the system,
for a game with a more limited focus, bounded accuracy could be a wonderful goal if applied
consistently, and I like the simplicity of "everything is your ability modifier" (not "ability
score", cuz DtAS), but it would require dumping the skills system and sticking with something
like 13th Age's backgrounds system).

In short : I'm not sold, but the bit at the start about being inclusive about characters and
players who do not fit the traditional gender binary is encouraging and tells me that, despite
the fact that I disagree with the direction taken by the game designers, I at least know they
are good people.