D&D 5E Pages from the PHB

[Dausuul]

Woo-hoo! Wild Magic is back! C'mon, potion miscibility!

Potion miscibility was in the playtest. I think the odds are very good that it will make it to the final DMG.

 

[Uchawi]

I think the wild sorcerer is not for you.

That may be the case. I was hoping for some hybrid between the 4E sorcerer and previous editions. But there is still hope, because a table of random effects should be easy to replace. I will not know for certain until the PHB is released, but it may be my first house rule.

 

[I'm A Banana]

I see the PHB, MM, & DMG as the core books, the free Basic Rules pdf is just a teaser that will get thrown away once the real books come out.

This does not seem to be the reality of the situation based on what has been mentioned. The free PDF will be occasionally updated in the first few months and will serve as a full game (though a light one) in and of itself, including monsters, races, classes, and basic how-to-play rules. The intent appears to be to treat Basic D&D as the core rules for the game that players should be familiar with, with everything from the PHB, the DMG, and even the MM considered "modular."

Which isn't to say that something like the wild sorcerer won't be a popular module. Just that if they put out an adventure next year, unless wild sorcerers are a big part of it, the adventure won't assume that you have wild sorcerers in play.

I don't want to see anything in those core books that I don't like, I understand I will that is just how it goes but to me it is a bad sign that the first real look at the finished product and it makes me ignore an entire subclass to suit the taste of my playstyle.

We don't know if this is the only option for wild sorcerers yet. We do know this option exists, so somebody might take it if you allow it, but we don't know that this is the only option.

I don't like house rules, I do use them but I see them as doing the designers work for them and if I have to have a lot of them I start to ask myself "Why should I give them money for something I am going to change 50% of?".

Perhaps you shouldn't. Download the Basic D&D rules for free and play to your heart's content!

How is it hard to understand that there are going to be "core" optional modules in the DMG? They carry more weight and are official optional rules.

I think you can take that logic...and apply it to everything in the PHB, and you might get a sense of how I think the game is turning out.

 

[Thaumaturge]

It's totally cool if people don't want a Wild Sorcerer at their table. But clearly, some of us do. Some of us are excited about the very things others of us don't like.

So I'm glad they went with the more inclusive approach. If they had left out Wild Sorcerers because some people didn't like them, one group would be under served. With it in the book, just tell your player's you think people who like wild magic are daft and move on.

We also don't have any sense from this table how often surges occur, which is a big part of where this class rests on the "fun but occasionally silly" to "ridiculously silly and no fun" scale. I'm assuming the sorcerer can cast reckless dweomer to force a surge, but we don't know the frequency otherwise.

Thaumaturge.

 

[Dausuul]

For the most part, I really like the wild magic surge table--it's wacky and fun, perfect for the type of player who wants to be a wild mage. That said, I do hope they take a second look at the entries that screw with the other PCs. The wild mage should not, as a rule, be able to drag other people into the Wacky Fun Zone; it isn't everyone's cup of tea.

 

[Thaumaturge]

For the most part, I really like the wild magic surge table--it's wacky and fun, perfect for the type of player who wants to be a wild mage. That said, I do hope they take a second look at the entries that screw with the other PCs. The wild mage should not, as a rule, be able to drag other people into the Wacky Fun Zone; it isn't everyone's cup of tea.

At my table, I think it's polite to make sure it's ok with the other players before bringing in wild magic like this, because you're absolutely right. The guy playing the tiefling paladin struggling for redemption is going to feel like he doesn't fit at the table with the sorcerer with a feather beard.

Thaumaturge.

 

[The Hitcher]

[MENTION=13009]Paraxis[/MENTION]: It's not hard to understand that you see it that way. I don't think the game's designers see it that way, though. So if you do think that their words more authority than those of third-party authors, will you accept that they're designing this edition with the intention that it is both highly modular and user-extensible? From their perspective (as I understand it): Basic is the core, everything else is extension or modification of that core, and house rules that make the game "yours" are to be encouraged. It seems that you've already overruled their "authority" by deciding on your own way of interpreting the game's rules structure. Do you see how that's a contradiction?

 

[Mercurius]

So I'm glad they went with the more inclusive approach. If they had left out Wild Sorcerers because some people didn't like them, one group would be under served. With it in the book, just tell your player's you think people who like wild magic are daft and move on.

When in doubt, go inclusive. I mean, aesthetically speaking I'd rather tieflings and dragonborn be in some later supplement, and the PHB stay true to "classic" D&D, but I'm OK with them being there because many people like them.

I imagine the design team thought about how to both present a product that "feels like D&D" in a traditional sense to as many people as possible, while including some of the more beloved recent additions to the canon. In some cases D&D has rightfully let go of an old Gygaxian meme and taken on a more popular newer approach. An example of this would be elves. Greyhawk elves have a certain charm, and some still prefer them, but most prefer the more noble, fay Tolkien-inspired Realmsian elves that have been the default at least going back to 3E, if not before (can't remember what the 2E elves were like).

So it is a fine balance, and from what I gather Mearls & Company are right on target to finding that sweetspot that serves as many people as possible - as best they can, at least.

 

[The Hitcher]

I'd encourage every group to discuss their character choices with each other before the game begins. More than that: discuss what you want out of the game generally, and get to a place where everyone's happy. If that's not possible, you may not be playing with the right people.

 

[Paraxis]

[MENTION=13009]Paraxis[/MENTION]: It's not hard to understand that you see it that way. I don't think the game's designers see it that way, though. So if you do think that their words more authority than those of third-party authors, will you accept that they're designing this edition with the intention that it is both highly modular and user-extensible? From their perspective (as I understand it): Basic is the core, everything else is extension or modification of that core, and house rules that make the game "yours" are to be encouraged. It seems that you've already overruled their "authority" by deciding on your own way of interpreting the game's rules structure. Do you see how that's a contradiction?

Can you understand I don't want to use house rules? That I don't want to ban a whole subclass or two, from what I consider a core book the PHB?

I will take away things I don't like, I will add things I do want. But I don't want to do either, I want the core PHB to be as close to my desires as possible, and the optional rule modules I add I would like to appear in the DMG another core book. I feel every time I have to remove something from the PHB the system fails, every time I add a rules module that isn't in the DMG the system fails. If I have to do to much of either I won't want to spend my money on the system, but I want to like the system it is D&D after all.