D&D 5E 5e Basic Rules poll

How do you feel about the 5th edition Basic Rules?

  • Love it!

    Votes: 219 71.6%
  • Hate it!

    Votes: 17 5.6%
  • Reserving judgement until I actually play

    Votes: 70 22.9%


log in or register to remove this ad

Der-Rage

First Post
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.
'4E mark II' is something I could have emphatically got behind, and I find DDN to be quite 'eh, alright'. It is almost but not quite entirely unlike 4th Edition in every meaningful way. In a lot of ways it's what 3E might have looked like if written by TSR.

Also repeating the same old nonsense about the Forge doesn't make it become any more true, dude. This is literally the same anti-factual argument you were pushing a couple months ago and it's not going to gain any more traction than it did then.
 


Yora

Legend
It's still a d20 game. Other than attack bonuses and saving throw bonuses rising to steeply, they don't seem to have adressed any of the great inherent flaws of the system.

I stay with AD&D.
 

tyrlaan

Explorer
'4E mark II' is something I could have emphatically got behind, and I find DDN to be quite 'eh, alright'. It is almost but not quite entirely unlike 4th Edition in every meaningful way. In a lot of ways it's what 3E might have looked like if written by TSR.

Couldn't agree with you more. It's way more 3E mark II than 4e mark II, in my opinion. And like you, I'd have preferred a 4E mark II edition.

As a player, going back to lengthy spell lists and equally lengthy spell descriptions is incredibly undesirable to the point of probably being a deal breaker regardless of how cool everything else may be.

As a DM, I'm less turned off by what I see, except for the mention of CR, which has me worried that encounter design and gauging monster difficulty is not going to be elegant. And if this turns out to be true, well then that'll probably be a deal breaker.
 

A

amerigoV

Guest
This is EXACTLY what I was looking for EXACTLY 5* years ago. So, you could say that I love it in the same way as a one smiles when they hear a lost love is available again, but that you have already moved on. So I guess I will be stalking it on Facebook :)

* (On a small private board for my home group, I looked it up - it was exactly 7/1/2009 that we discussed and switch to Savage Worlds).
 

JediSoth

Semi-Professional Author
Epic
"Love it" is a bit strong for me at this point, so I picked the "reserve judgement" option. I loved 3.X/Pathfinder, but no longer (though I still like Pathfinder's fluff and presentation). I was thoroughly "meh" (maybe cautiously optimistic) before the the Basic Rules & Starter Set came out just because I knew nothing about the game. Now that I've seen it, I get the sense that I could enjoy this edition, especially if I lock down rules bloat in the group early. Enough of my group is intrigued sufficiently that we're going to shelve Edge of the Empire until after Gen Con so I can run D&D 5E. One player is playing it at Gen Con and another is running it at Gen Con and both have expressed a desire to be more familiar with it through actual play first, and everyone else agreed that it looked like it was worth giving it a shot.

Now, I'm REALLY curious to see if the options presented in the core books can make it feel like AD&D with modern sensibilities. It's a paradigm I've been looking for since I got burned out on the d20 system's complexity. So, I don't love it yet, but I can see how I might grow to love it. I'm certainly open to the possibility.
 


Phototoxin

Explorer
I wouldn't say I hate it, but I think it's more a throwback to 2E style with some cleanup rather than an evolution of the current game. At the moment the PCs are level 13 in 'my' campaign which is an adaptation of the Red Hand of Doom which the new tiamat adventure is supposedly based on. So I think we'll stick with 4E until that finishes out at level 16 or so and then see if they want to continue (I have stuff ready for all the way to Epic level using adapted scales of war stuff).

At the minute 5E is too limiting since we only have the basic ruleset it's very had to make a like for like comparison.
 


Stormonu

Legend
I'm getting vibes of 2E, 3E and 4E from the game. Haven't had the chance to actually play, but I mostly like what I see so far (though lack of monster lore makes me concerned - we'll see how the MM handles things).

What I really like is that I feel like I could pull my 1E/2E modules right off the shelf and run them with minimal or no conversion. Couldn't do that with 3E or 4E without major surgery.
 

Keldryn

Adventurer
I'm getting vibes of 2E, 3E and 4E from the game. Haven't had the chance to actually play, but I mostly like what I see so far (though lack of monster lore makes me concerned - we'll see how the MM handles things).

What I really like is that I feel like I could pull my 1E/2E modules right off the shelf and run them with minimal or no conversion. Couldn't do that with 3E or 4E without major surgery.
Mike Mearls said in that Time Show podcast that the MM emphasizes the monsters' story role in the game world. He was asked if it talk about ecology, organization, and physiology, and he said yes. He said that you should just be able to open to page 1 of the MM and just have fun reading it.

So sounds like the 2e MM and the two 4e MV products.
 

Plaguescarred

D&D Playtester for WoTC since 2012
I'm loving the monster manual already!

The AD&D 2nd edition monstrous manual was my favorite monster manual just for that...
 

Nebulous

Legend
Mike Mearls said in that Time Show podcast that the MM emphasizes the monsters' story role in the game world. He was asked if it talk about ecology, organization, and physiology, and he said yes. He said that you should just be able to open to page 1 of the MM and just have fun reading it.

So sounds like the 2e MM and the two 4e MV products.

Thank God. Glad to hear that. Reading the monsters manuals was always my favorite part of D&D.
 

Savage Wombat

Adventurer
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).

I can see why you dislike the tone, but I can't see what you have against the rules. In what way do these rules interfere with your distinctive style of D&D gaming?
 


Ningauble

First Post
Love It! I was skeptical when Wizards said it would be a mix of all editions, but I think they pulled it off. The emphasis on the story telling is great. I also love all the references to Dragonlance and the Forgotten Realms in the rulebooks. Just feels like D&D should.
 


IronWolf

blank
I answered the poll that I am reserving judgment, but really - I like what I see so far in the Basic PDF download. Probably a few tweaks here and there, but it feels more like making house rules than overhauls to bring it into "spec". Definitely a positive vibe at this point.
 


An Advertisement

Advertisement4

Top