D&D 5E Unexpected but (mostly) awesome new rules in Basic

[Tequila Sunrise]

The first time the paragraph was called to my attention was by a person who expressed relief it was there. I've also read other stories people have told about being excluded. They had been told they couldn't play a gay or trans character because "Those kinds don't exist in Forgotten Realms/Greyhawk/whatever. Show me in the rules where it says they are or one character in the books!"

Now they can point at that paragraph.

I spent a good thirty minutes trying to express in words how this story makes me feel, but couldn't. So I'm just going to say:

Thanks for sharing.

 

[Abstruse]

I spent a good thirty minutes trying to express in words how this story makes me feel, but couldn't. So I'm just going to say:

Thanks for sharing.

I'm a heterosexual cismale, but I felt it was very important to be inclusive. I spent 400ish of the 2400ish words in my review of Basic D&D for my Ain't It Cool News column discussing that paragraph. Aside from some pushback on the language used (some consider "hermaphrodite" a slur and that "trapped in a man's body" is an offensive way to describe someone who is trans), the response has been overwhelmingly positive. Except for, you know, the trolls who got upset because saying outright that everyone is welcome somehow offends them? Anyway, don't read the talkbacks on my review, there's a whole lot of that sort of stupid running around.

 

[Kobold Stew]

Nice review, Abstruse.

Here's the review for the rest of us.

 

[mach1.9pants]

" Fighting Man, Thief, Wizard, Cleric, Dwarf, Elf, and Halfling (and honestly, Cleric wasn’t added until after the game’s release)"

Uh, I think you mean Thief!

Nice review, just don't delve into the comments. Although it did mean I saw this comment about the "gaying up" (actual words used) of D&D which made me laugh "Lots of great options. You can even play a loudmouthed bigot with an Intelligence of 3."

 

[Zelligars Apprentice]

First, on topic to the thread: I liked how they did spell preparation and spell slots. It seems to have the best of both worlds, combining the tactical decision-making of preparing spells ahead of time with the flexibility of using the slots only at the time of casting. I'll have to see it in play, of course, but on first read it looks promising.


Next, on the inclusiveness paragraph: It's awesome, heartwarming and wonderful that they have it. It's not so wonderful that such things are STILL remarkable, and controversial. Come on. people! It's the 21st century. Aren't we past this already?

 

[Zustiur]

I know this isn't a rule, but it's the closest topic match.

I didn't expect to get multiple settings in the fluff of the book. THAT is something I consider to be truly awesome as it means the rules won't be too heavily slanted towards FR, which in turn means that I won't have to use house rules to de-FR the rules in order to keep using my generic homebrew world.

 

[Nebulous]

First, on topic to the thread: I liked how they did spell preparation and spell slots. It seems to have the best of both worlds, combining the tactical decision-making of preparing spells ahead of time with the flexibility of using the slots only at the time of casting. I'll have to see it in play, of course, but on first read it looks promising.

It seems so simple and obvious now, i wonder why it wasn't done before. I think it also opens the door for future creative spell design. For those of us that like Feats (I do) I can see powerful feats changing the way you use spell slots. Maybe that's already baked in, i haven't looked that close.

 

[Remathilis]

It seems so simple and obvious now, i wonder why it wasn't done before. I think it also opens the door for future creative spell design. For those of us that like Feats (I do) I can see powerful feats changing the way you use spell slots. Maybe that's already baked in, i haven't looked that close.

FWIW: My friends dad was playing D&D since inception, and he changed his casters some something similar (different in details, but not in concept) 20 years ago.

Its a great new system imho.

 

[Stalker0]

It seems so simple and obvious now, i wonder why it wasn't done before.

My guess because of the power it provides.

This is an area people have overlooked in the new edition...the new spellcasting rules adds a huge amount of power to spellcasters, because flexibility and utility is powerful.

To compensate they had to modify spells and other aspects of spellcasting to assure balance.

 

[doctorhook]

Next, on the inclusiveness paragraph: It's awesome, heartwarming and wonderful that they have it. It's not so wonderful that such things are STILL remarkable, and controversial. Come on. people! It's the 21st century. Aren't we past this already?

It's remarkable because in forty years of D&D, this is the first time a core book has explicitly spelled out that characters aren't required to conform to binary notions of gender.

Many of us are past this; the paragraph being discussed was not for us. It's for the people like those commenting on Abstruse's review, the ones who don't think sex- and gender-nonconformity are appropriate for Basic", and the ones who think homosexuality is too political to be allowed in a game. As mentioned by Particle_Man upthread, WotC has opted to make use of a teachable moment.