D&D 5E A better basics

Do you feel like starter set + basic rules does not provide all that?

(Not including the mat and pawns, fair enough :) )

Yeah, no way. 5e starter set has a bigger adventure but otherwise fails on every level.

Heck,even full PHB-DMG-MM 5e does not have proper comprehensive encounter tables like the Pathfinder BB does - and neither does the Pathfinder Core Rules for that matter! The PBB stands head and shoulders over any other RPG product I have ever seen. You have to go to OSR retroclone stuff to get anything even in the same ballpark in terms of providing a comprehensive game, and they lack the bells & whistles (pregens, dice, pawns,
battlemat etc).

If 5e did not exist I reckon I'd still be GMing PBB as my system of choice.
 

log in or register to remove this ad

The basic rules are fine as is. They are simple enough for most new players to understand quickly, yet interesting enough to keep people's attention. If you REALLY feel that you need a simple caster, replace Wizard with Warlock, but I think it's wrong.

I think that too many people underestimate the intelligence of new players. Spellcasters (especially wizards) get a lot of crap for being "complicated." Well kids have been learning D&D using much more complicated rules than 5E for decades (especially the AD&D days). So it seems like these people think that players today are stupider than they used to be, or that they're too lazy to actually read the rules. I don't believe either to be true.
 

I don't think it's a case of players being dumb.

But we can't act like there isn't a phenomena wherein newer players are offered a Fighter or Rogue as their first character or suggested to hold off on selecting a spellcaster until they have a firmer grasp on the rules.

I think OP is looking for something where pretty much all the intro classes are on the level of simplicity of the Champion Fighter or simpler. Where most all the needed rules fit on a single page with no need to reference the 100+ page "basic" rules.
 

I do not have a problem with basic rules. I would definitely leave a basic mage class, maybe less spell choice to start.

Something to simplify things a bit would be to make weapons tie to class. If you have a fighter, you deal 1d10 damage or 1d8 with ranged. If the player pictures his fighter with a sword or ax or flail- they all deal 1d10. Thieves and clerics maybe deal 1d6 with whatever weapon. You can abridge the list of weapons to start.
 

I'd probably keep the 4 current choices in a basic dnd book, they all seem fairly straightforward. I'm not sure on what they look like, but if it's not already like this I would probably merge the class information and subclass information together so that abilities a written in the order gained.

I'm aware that some people have trouble with some things in dnd that others find quite simple. I watched a video on YouTube about how some players have trouble understanding when to add proficiency bonus and realised that that was something one of my players had. Perhaps a simplified character sheet could help mitigate this.

For the wizard, keeping the spells to a limited list would be a good idea, could even limit them to evocation spells with a few outsiders like sleep, hold person, and dispel magic to cut down on the choices. It would mean that most of their spells will interact with their subclass.
 


Here's how I play with daughters and niece, ages 8, 8, and 4.

- full heals after each fight
- only archetypical spells: cleric has one heal, one buff; wizard shoots fire; both have arbitrary non combat magic that can do anything thematically appropriate
- no new abilities, no levels. New abilities come from magic items
- we roll for init, to hit, and damage; we also roll for skills and ability checks


It's a blast. May not be "real" dnd, but it *feels* like it, and they beg to play.
 

I don't think it's a case of players being dumb.

But we can't act like there isn't a phenomena wherein newer players are offered a Fighter or Rogue as their first character or suggested to hold off on selecting a spellcaster until they have a firmer grasp on the rules.

I think OP is looking for something where pretty much all the intro classes are on the level of simplicity of the Champion Fighter or simpler. Where most all the needed rules fit on a single page with no need to reference the 100+ page "basic" rules.
The phenomena is a failure of the DM, not the rules. It's easier to teach non-casters than casters, but the rules themselves aren't that hard, especially with quick build options. If you use pre-built characters (such as for conventions), new players can easily figure out the wizard and cleric. Even with helping build new characters, it just takes time and some patience (it's hard for a new player to build ANY type of new character).

As for the one page character sheet, you'd just be forcing the phenomena to occur. With the exception of maybe the Warlock (and that's only a maybe), spellcasters are going to require more pages. Even some non-casters and half-casters are going to take up a lot of space because of character options (like monks and Ki powers). So unless you want to get rid of healers, this just isn't going to work without a major re-write of the classes.
 

I want to know what you'd put in a handbook designed to introduce players to DnD without completely overwhelming them. That means keeping it as simple as possible.

Limiting the amount of material is certainly part of the task of avoiding overwhelming beginners.

As a matter of fact, I would strive to implement all simplifications pretty much through limitation of material, rather than changing some rules. If you design a "D&D for Dummies" this way, it becomes 100% compatible with the standard rules, and this can be beneficial in two ways: (1) the transition to the standard rules will require only additions (no changes to what the beginners already know, and (2) it might be even possible to have beginners play the dummy version and others play the standard version at the same table. I actually think the official Basic game is very close to this, although I would have made it even simpler by applying the following limitations/selections of material:

1) Ability scores: use 1 or 2 possible default arrays for each class (e.g. one Str-focused and one Dex-focused array for Fighters).

2) Classes: Fighter (Champion), Cleric (Life), Rogue (Thief), Wizard (Conjuration). I think Conjuration is slightly simpler than Evocation. I wish there was a simpler domain than Life, but all domains are a bit complex.

3) Races: default Humans only, as all other races increase complexity significantly... I'd suggest however the possibility of "narratively" play a dwarf, elf or hobbit, without mechanical differences.

4) Backgrounds: Soldier, Acolyte, Folk Hero, Sage, with fixed choices (no optional traits/flaws/bonds), and directly associated to each class (Folk Hero for Rogues). Basically, I would present the background as part of the corresponding class, without even mentioning that they are 2 separate things in 5e.

5) Spells: pre-selected lists. I would pick iconic and simple spells for the Wizard. I would also not present the complete Cleric list, but instead present a shorter list (maybe even just as many spells as the character can prepare daily, so that she would simply prepare them all). I would avoid all spells that use bonus actions to cast, and spells that require concentration -> this means two less rules to know and monitor during the game.

6) Other class special abilities: either pre-selected, or give maximum 2 options to choose from. For example, the Fighter's Fighting Style, I would give a choice between Defense and Dueling (they are super-simple).

7) Equipment: preselected at 1st level, possibly 2 variants offered (e.g. greataxe OR sword&board). Keep it at minimum! Just weapons & armors, some obvious class tools (e.g. spellcasting focus, thieves' tools) and a backpack with food & water.

8) Obviously no feats or multiclassing.

9) Combat: present only the obvious combat options such as Attack, Cast a Spell, and Dash. The only additional action I would present is Disengage, because I would still include OAs in the beginner's game.
 

So what classes and races would you choose if you could make your own Basic handbook?

Personally, I don't think its the classes or races that make DnD complex, its always been the mechanics (thaco, grappling, stealth) so if I was going to change anything in a "DnD Basic" book it would be that. However I also think 5e is pretty mechanically straight forward so I probably wouldn't change anything.
 

Remove ads

Top