D&D 5E D&D 5e Basic Set: Things that make you go "what?!"

[fba827]

Count me as one of their number, I do think it is a little weird. I have not figured out a reason why the added complexity of having two types of things that work like skills becomes important. Why separate them? I mean it is a minor issue that does not affect my like of the game but proficiency in a skill vs. a tool seems very much like a similar thing.

I also find it odd. That said the reasons I can find so far for the distinction is that tool proficiency is more easily acquired as is presented in the current basic rules ( for instance, you can gain tool proficiency by training in downtime, but you can't with skills), and 'flavor wise' tools are non class specific items ( aside from thieves tools which is pretty specific, though I guess opens the door for rangers or others who want to disable traps with some ability and not depend on a rogue).

 

[Branduil]

The Thief archetype is still described as learning "skills useful for delving into ancient ruins, reading unfamiliar languages, …". But they removed the Decipher Script ability, so the Thief has no special skill with languages.

Maybe it's part of a different Rogue subclass now? Or a feat?

 

[Mercule]

BASIC
Definition of basic (adj)
ba·sic
[ báyssik ]

1.most important: most important or essential
2.elementary: serving as a starting point or minimum
3.without extra: without or before the addition of anything extra

Yeah, yeah. If it's not stock (or is easily swappable) the PHB, I have no complaints. If I were to guess, though, I'd guess that turn undead is going to be standard in the PHB.

 

[Mercule]

I see no problem with it - at Dex 3, you're only a step up from "tree stump" dex, anyway, so having armor protect you as much as it protects a mannequin is OK by me.

I'll have to see it in play, but it's got benefit of doubt. With a base score of 8 (-1 penalty), I can't see it as a big deal.

 

[Blue]

Only use your power cards

I'm a bit disappointed in a few cases of "4e-only-powers" type lockdown. An easy example is the Rogue's "Cunning Action". It's rather exclusive in the specific actions allowed which RAW locks out any related improv actions and the like. Have something similar that comes out of a later book or optional module? Sorry, you need a house rule to use it with this and don't even think about it in organized play.

 

[Mouseferatu]

An easy example is the Rogue's "Cunning Action". It's rather exclusive in the specific actions allowed which RAW locks out any related improv actions and the like. Have something similar that comes out of a later book or optional module? Sorry, you need a house rule to use it with this and don't even think about it in organized play.

I'd think it'd be SoP for any future options intended to go with Cunning Actions to just include a "This works with Cunning Action" note. Much as new feats in 3E specified if they could be taken as fighter bonus feats.

Also, *wave* Hey, folks. Been a while.

 

[Abstruse]

I'm a bit disappointed in a few cases of "4e-only-powers" type lockdown. An easy example is the Rogue's "Cunning Action". It's rather exclusive in the specific actions allowed which RAW locks out any related improv actions and the like. Have something similar that comes out of a later book or optional module? Sorry, you need a house rule to use it with this and don't even think about it in organized play.

I'm not sure how that's exclusive. It's just a bonus ability. You can still take whatever action you want on your turn, but in addition you can also run away, get out of melee without getting attacked, or get behind something to hide. It's giving you more options, not taking them away.

 

[Blue]

I'd think it'd be SoP for any future options intended to go with Cunning Actions to just include a "This works with Cunning Action" note. Much as new feats in 3E specified if they could be taken as fighter bonus feats.

Also, *wave* Hey, folks. Been a while.

Hi Mouse! Quick plug, loved your _Hot Lead, Cold Iron_!

Back to the question though: what you are proposing would solve the issues, but Wizards has an reputation of not doing what you are suggesting. To use 4e for an example, there were numerous feats and paragon paths that never got updated when new material came out, not just the core but every thing since. Fighter stuff that only works with the original fighter at-wills, etc.

Anyway, it already doesn't work with the "Improvising an Action" rule on pg 72.

They can't bank on updates for all sorts of buried rules like this happening across staff changes, products developed at the same time, and the like. It's no shame, just part of being this large. I wish I had their problems. But with them pushing organized play hard where RAW is needed, any specter of early 4e's "if it's not on a power card..." needs to be tossed.

 

[Mouseferatu]

Hi Mouse! Quick plug, loved your _Hot Lead, Cold Iron_!

Thank you! I'm supposed to be working on the sequel instead of posting on messageboards, actually.

As to the rest of it, you're entirely right that that's a potential problem; I just don't think it's a certain one. And, as Abstruse said, even if it does go that way, it's a bonus move, so it's still better'n not having it.

 

[Abstruse]

Anyway, it already doesn't work with the "Improvising an Action" rule on pg 72.

They can't bank on updates for all sorts of buried rules like this happening across staff changes, products developed at the same time, and the like. It's no shame, just part of being this large. I wish I had their problems. But with them pushing organized play hard where RAW is needed, any specter of early 4e's "if it's not on a power card..." needs to be tossed.

How so? "I break down the door, then duck behind it to hide!" It's not limiting your options, it's just giving you three additional ones. Ones that are iconic to the Rogue concept (hit-and-fade, quickly hiding, and running away). "I move up to the guy, attempt to steal the amulet, then get away before he can attack!" Movement, Action (Sleight of Hand Dex Check), Bonus Action (Disengage).