D&D 5E Is 5E "big enough" for a Basic/Advanced split?

[Reynard]

Ultimately I wasn't really talking about the difference between a "casual" versus "hardcore" type of experience. Rather I remember well the distinct branches of D&D from the 80s and 90s and while I have no idea how that split contributed to the downfall of TSR (but I am sure it did) there was a period there where they were distinct games in a more nebulous, very cool way. They could have done Hollow World or Tales from the Princess Ark for AD&D, but they didn't, because those things fit D&D perfectly. Mystara itself never found purchase in AD&D the way it had in D&D, and I don't think that is coincidence.

I agree with folks saying it won't happen, I was just wondering idly whether it could. [insert Jeff Goldblum here]

 

[Stalker0]

I'm not sure about the impact of AL - I mean how many AL players compared to 5e players worldwide ?

The difference is.... house tables have always regulated themselves in the face of new books. Only AL tables are "forced" to deal with the variety of new crunch and new power combinations added by more books.

 

[Umbran]

The difference is.... house tables have always regulated themselves in the face of new books. Only AL tables are "forced" to deal with the variety of new crunch and new power combinations added by more books.

We understand the difference. We wonder about how much impact that actually has, in a broad sense.

 

[guachi]

But as Domain Management, War Machine and quests for immortality shore, BECMI was anything but a "simple" game just "for beginners."

I think the basic game being "leaner" as you mention is a reason BECMI could add Domain Management, War Machine, and Immortality. There weren't so many rules already in place that you couldn't add more at the appropriate time. There is a big difference between rules that matter from level 1 and rules that matter at level 10 or 15 or 30.

 

[Li Shenron]

Personally, I'd like to see a Basic version of 5e that is more basic than "just remove feats, multiclassing, etc."

For example, with core mechanics, removing skills and bonus actions.

Interesting proposal...

I probably forget something, but on the top of my head these are bonus action abilities that are built into classes:

Barbarian: enter/exit Rage
Bard: use bardic inspiration
Druid: end wildshape
Fighter: second wind
Monk: extra unarmed strike, flurry of blows, patient defence, shadow step
Ranger: vanish
Rogue: cunning action
Sorcerer: flexible casting

The REAL deal of bonus actions is to be usable in the same turn as regular actions, but only one bonus action per turn. It gets complicated only when you have multiple abilities competing for that single bonus action per turn, but only the Monk has more than one.

A "basic" game can simply re-word the abilities above as "once per turn in addition to your action". Everything will be fine because there are no feats or multiclassing. Bonus action spells could be simply excluded from the basic game.

The Monk would need an extra rule saying that those four are mutually exclusive (group them together like the Rogue's Cunning Action).

There are some subclasses abilities that use bonus actions but actually not many. However I believe that a "basic" game would default each class to the simplest possible subclass so it should be possible to avoid those with more bonus action abilities.

So you wouldn't even need to restrict Basic to four classes like the actual 5e Starter Set does. I believe that a Basic game doesn't need to limit available races and classes, but rather to remove other choice points, including ability scores generation to keep everything as simple as possible during both the game and character creation/advancement.

 

[Yora]

I have never seen anyone running the game on the Basic rules alone. Is that a thing people actually do?

I would have totally done it, but you constantly get players asking for more options they want to use, regardless of the campaign and setting. I yhink PHB only is the minimum you can get away with.

Though I would consider 5th edition already the advanced version. To have something really be a basic version, it would have to fit on 128 pages in total. Player rules, GM info, monsters, and treasures combined. Maybe 256 pages with monster stat blocks taking up so much space and the fancy illustration, but a single normal sized book as the complete game is what it would take.

 

[Shiroiken]

The original Basic boxed set was meant only as an introduction to either OD&D or AD&D, and was never intended to go beyond level 3. However, a ton of people really enjoyed the stripped down version over either of the others, so it became its own edition of the game. Unlike back then, 5E is versatile enough to allow people to play a simple or a more complex game, so there's absolutely no benefit to officially splitting the fan base.

 

[Yora]

Really not sure if playing a simple 5th edition game is an option.

 

[Reynard]

Really not sure if playing a simple 5th edition game is an option.

Do you mean that as a personal preference or that 5E cannot be simplified and still be playable?

 

[beancounter]

5E is pretty basic as it is relative to prior editions. I can't imagine people playing a simplified version of 5E for more than a few sessions before they move on to the full ruleset.