D&D 5E Starter Set Character Sheet Revealed!

[Ruin Explorer]

If you apply that to the reading of Second Wind's description, then it can only be done while in combat.

I think it might be fair to suggest that most D&D groups would regard that as obvious rules-lawyering of the lowest kind.

Your other point opens a can of worms as to counts as "exploration and interaction". Hopefully it's all better defined in post-playtest stuff.

 

[Dausuul]

When the argument of 'multiple short rests in a row' came up early in the thread I expected an quick quote of the short rest definition from the playtest rules (pg 23 - How to Play). Instead it took 299 posts (30 pages) before someone actually did, and was ignored by subsequent responses.

Can't speak for anyone else, but the reason I'm ignoring it is that it doesn't address my problem. In fact, it is the direct cause of my problem. Which is:

If I rest for 2 hours*, and nothing happens, I get to heal 1d10 hit points.
If I rest for 2 hours, and halfway through that time a goblin attacks me, I get to heal 2d10 hit points.

A 2-hour rest that gets interrupted halfway through is twice as restful as one in which nothing happens. This is absurd and makes no sense.

[size=-2]*Or 10 minutes, or whatever "twice the length of a short rest" is.[/size]

 

[MoonSong]

A) You are stuck playing a 10 STR fighter for two levels. You will probably die. So there is the entire "hey party, I'm playing a fighter that can't hit things in melee!" bit.

Two levels equivalent to roughly two sessions, and there is a thing called ranged fighting and another called dualwielding finesse weapons, I don't think it is outrageous to think a reasonably stated wizard will have a decent dex and con, so I fail to see how this compromises survivability.

B) This assumes the MC requirements stay only one sided; meaning that you aren't required to have both classes' MC requirements. I have no special knowledge of such things, but it would not surprise me if that is changed in the final PHB.

This would put down yet another reasonable use for multiclassing, a dex based fighter or paladin would be unable to multiclass at all, as a str based rogue, a cha-dex based cleric or an int-str based bard. That despite them being very valid character variants. This heavy emphasis on only allowing walking stereotypes to multiclass goes counter to one of the points of multiclassing -having more unique and interesting characters- and does nothing to stop the more outrageous ones - the unhittable druid/rogue/monk/barbarian.

I think you are overreacting and sort of missing the point about 5E, which, frankly, for a ton of people hyperanalyzing every little bit of 5E, is mind-boggling. 5E is a very basic framework of a game, with the capability of "build your own edition". The game is designed from the ground up assuming that each group will make changes to fit their specific playstyle. Everyone seems to be hung up on the "official" rules, when the design of the game explicitly states that each group is intended to make minor and/or major modifications to make the game fit their own group.

OK with Damage on a Miss? Here's some mechanics that use it. Not OK? Here are equivalent mechanics that don't use it. Fine with people being able to heal themselves? Here are some mechanics for it. Not fine? Here are some alternate mechanics. The hard work in the edition is getting said mechanics to balance with each other, which for the most part, I think they've managed to do a real good job of it.

As for "DM empowerment", well, all they've done is shifted the burden to the whole group on how to play. By making multiclass opt-in rather than opt-out, it means that the game is balanced around non multiclass characters, meaning that players aren't screwed for not going an optimization route with multiclassing, as well as allowing WotC to not have to try to come up with ways to deal with every potential corner case of multiclass power-gaming. Making gaming groups sit down and customize the game the way they like it before they start seems like a pretty good idea to me, overall. People having "power" over each other in a gaming group is an issue between the people, not the game.

It seems a bit hyperbolic to me to argue from "Multi-classing is expressly labelled as requiring GM-side permission" to "No one will buy the PHB because the GMs of the world will confine them to the options in Basic.

I think the PHB will contain lots of single-class PC build options. And in 4e, the hybrid rules basically came with a similar "handle with care" caveat, but I doubt that this was, in itself, a big factor or the sale of 4e books.

This is all good and dandy when your group is an actual group and not a random bunch of people who just happened to be playing at the same time the same game, as in a convention or in pbp or vtt. In such situations DMs hold a lot of power, as they are in a way doing a favour to players, and players have very few tools to influence the game they either adapt or don't get to play at all. That is what happens when you are basically expendable as opposed to a trusted friend of many years or at least a regular in a stable group. Say what you want of 4e and its philosophy, but it made for very open and amicable casual play. And this is the problem I have with next philosophy, it is very fine for actual groups, but outside home games group level decisions are basically DMs decisions, of course there are very open DMs out there and I think I'm very open when DMing, but I have found many instances of very intrusive DMs who force you to change character concepts on a whim, but at least had to be upfront on why they were banning something 'official', the smallest the pool of options with legitimacy, the more easy DMs get to be arbitrary. And it looks like an evergrowing attitude to label anything not in basic strictly optional, which is ok for groups, but for DMs not subject to peer consensus is an open invitation to be authoritarian and restrict things on a whim -and again I've met many DMs who hate sorcerers and bards already, but the unspoken agreement is for them to be upfront with it or at least come with a very good ingame reason for it, such an evocative setting that makes sense, without this legitimacy -this so called entitlement- there is not much hope for a phb to be anything but an expensive paperweight.

 

[Neonchameleon]

Maybe it's just that I never encountered the idea that Hit Points didn't account for wounds until 4E, where they rather explicitly state that everything in a Hit Point is something that recovers with a night of rest. For various reasons, I still can't buy into the idea that you could lose Hit Points without actually getting hit, or that the physical state of a character is not reflected in current Hit Points.

Can I ask when you started playing? Because Gygax was extremely clear in the 1E DMG that hit points were in no sense physical meat. And hit points do not, and have never reflected actual serious wounds in terms of their recovery times; it takes as long to recover from a real world marathon as it does someone in AD&D with no magical healing at all to recover from 1hp in a worst case scenario. The damage inflicted by hit points has always been cinematic which is why it's never inflicted any actual penalties or imposed a substantial recovery time (unlike most RPGs from the late 70s, 80s, and 90s.

As much as I hate to admit it, I don't think the OSR and 3rd/4th edition D&D tribes can meet in the middle. It would be a compromise pleasing only the moderates, leaving out about half of the hardcore old school gamers and half of the 3/4e crowd.

You think you can treat the 3E and 4E crowds as the same thing? Haven't you been reading this board?

Something acceptable to OSR fans would pick up a lot of 4E fans. Not necessarily as a primary game - there's a clash in tones. But one of the key points about 4E is that it's focussed game design that does what it does really well. OSR games may be focussed on something different but you can't doubt the focus - and we already have 4E. In fact the most common request from 4E fans if there were to be a 4E v2 is to get rid of the feats.

If the free online Basic D&D had been predominantly old school with Advanced techniques just within the PHB and DMG, that would have made a lot more D&D fans happy. But the Starter Set pre-gens with Second Wind, Action Surge, etc? I think a lot of OD&D, AD&D, and many 2nd edition gamers will be turned off. They might still try it, but it won't be a love-fest success story for Mearls, Wizards, Hasbro, etc. like they hoped.

VS

p.s. Just blogged about this exact issue (see my signature for details).

"A lot more D&D fans". Frankly, the OSR is tiny. Most other RPG companies would be happy with those numbers - but it's a tiny fraction of D&D fans. Consistently less than 5% of all D&D discussion online is OSR (currently <2% according to the Hot Games tab) - and a lot of old school fans are happy with the games they have. 13th Age on its own gets more discussion. And the OSR was born on blogs and message boards (while most players of pre-3E D&D haven't consistently paid money for their RPGs in a decade and a half).

As for your comments about the character sheet on your blog, I believe there's a lot of nostalgia there. I'd call the D&D Next sheet simpler than one with five separate saving throws, descending armour class, and either THAC0 or a lookup table. And probably a Bend Bars chance. I'd also for that matter call it significantly simpler than the 3.0, 3.5, 4E, or Pathfinder character sheets.

 

[ExploderWizard]

but you also run the risk of turning off new players who want to be able to do something "cool" on their action.

right now I'm playing a 1e game, and to be honest, I would lose my mind as a fighter (all you do is attack)... while playing an gray-elf cleric/magic-user the lack of options in cleric spells (god clerics sucked in 1e) is driving me nuts!

Quit yer bellyaching! The 1E cleric has it made. The 1E cleric has a chance for bonus spells. The OD&D and B/X cleric don't even GET a spell at 1st level! These 1E whippersnappers, I tell ya.

 

[Talath]

This is only an observation, not a judgment, but I'm legitimately surprised that people played 3e without wands of CLW. My groups were doing that regularly by 2001.

I guess it's just anecdote # 4123478 as to how differently people play what is nominally the same game.

We never played with wants of CLW. However, most of the people I played with never played magical characters because they were unwilling to learn the magic rules.

 

[Tony Semana]

I think it might be fair to suggest that most D&D groups would regard that as obvious rules-lawyering of the lowest kind.

Really? I'm surprised by that as I don't see any far stretches in what I pointed out. Also, I didn't realize rules lawyering came in levels. But oh well, I think it's rules-reading-and-understanding at the most basic level.

Your other point opens a can of worms as to counts as "exploration and interaction". Hopefully it's all better defined in post-playtest stuff.

(pg 8 - How to Play) Exploration
Whether you enter an ancient tomb, slip through the back alleys of Waterdeep, or hack a fresh trail through the thick jungles of the Isle of Dread, much of a D&D adventure revolves around exploration. Part of the fun in the game is uncovering the secrets, monsters, and treasures that the DM has placed throughout the campaign world. You never know what might lurk around the corner.

(pg12 - How to Play) Interaction:
Exploring dungeons, overcoming obstacles, and slaying monsters are key parts of most D&D adventures, but no less important are the interactions that adventurers have with other people, monsters, and even things in the world.

If a group can't extrapolate a common-sense understanding of what counts as exploration and interaction from these and the accompanying text under their large headings, then.. yes, I hope they're better defined post playtest.

 

[Cybit]

As much as I hate to admit it, I don't think the OSR and 3rd/4th edition D&D tribes can meet in the middle. It would be a compromise pleasing only the moderates, leaving out about half of the hardcore old school gamers and half of the 3/4e crowd.

If the free online Basic D&D had been predominantly old school with Advanced techniques just within the PHB and DMG, that would have made a lot more D&D fans happy. But the Starter Set pre-gens with Second Wind, Action Surge, etc? I think a lot of OD&D, AD&D, and many 2nd edition gamers will be turned off. They might still try it, but it won't be a love-fest success story for Mearls, Wizards, Hasbro, etc. like they hoped.

VS

p.s. Just blogged about this exact issue (see my signature for details).

EDIT: You know, could everyone just wait for the game to actually come out before we start screaming chicken little? By that I mean not just the starter set, which is not aimed at us in the slightest, or Basic D&D, which doesn't have the modularity that is the core of the game for most of us, but like the actual PHB / MM / DMG all come out, and we play it?

Maybe we should do that before we worry about whether two non-concentration spells once per day (out of max level spells after that) in a single round is completely overpowered in the context of everything else that can be done with an optional multi-classing feature, or whether a single ability or two from the super simplified, self described board game version of a character + charitable misreading of a rule that is from a rules packet that is 9+ months old indicates that WotC just doesn't know how to balance games, or that they must be taking this strict design philosophy to its' extreme?

Seriously?

 

[Dausuul]

Really? I'm surprised by that as I don't see any far stretches in what I pointed out. Also, I didn't realize rules lawyering came in levels. But oh well, I think it's rules-reading-and-understanding at the most basic level.

The word is "rules-speculation," not "rules-lawyering," since we haven't seen the rules for bonus actions. If those rules say "Bonus actions can only be used in combat," then it will indeed be rules-reading-and-understanding to assert that they can only be used in combat.

However, if the rules do not say that, then it's quite a stretch to derive it from vague comments by the designers.

 

[Ruin Explorer]

Really? I'm surprised by that as I don't see any far stretches in what I pointed out. Also, I didn't realize rules lawyering came in levels. But oh well, I think it's rules-reading-and-understanding at the most basic level.

Pretty much exactly what I'd expect a rules-lawyer to say! I've rarely heard any rules-lawyer-y argument that didn't involve an appeal to "but it's just what the rules say!" (i.e. "reading-and-understanding").

The idea that such a power can only be used in "combat" seems real sketchy, frankly. Very 4E-esque, some might say, even.

(pg 8 - How to Play) Exploration
Whether you enter an ancient tomb, slip through the back alleys of Waterdeep, or hack a fresh trail through the thick jungles of the Isle of Dread, much of a D&D adventure revolves around exploration. Part of the fun in the game is uncovering the secrets, monsters, and treasures that the DM has placed throughout the campaign world. You never know what might lurk around the corner.

(pg12 - How to Play) Interaction:
Exploring dungeons, overcoming obstacles, and slaying monsters are key parts of most D&D adventures, but no less important are the interactions that adventurers have with other people, monsters, and even things in the world.

If a group can't extrapolate a common-sense understanding of what counts as exploration and interaction from these and the accompanying text under their large headings, then.. yes, I hope they're better defined post playtest.

A group can - it's just likely to be violently different from that of another groups, because that's some vague stuff. I mean, you wouldn't even be arguing this if there was a question about it, so let's not pretend that everyone agrees.

This is all very rules-lawyer-y stuff - by your logic, it'd be fine to rest for an hour, go argue with a friendly NPC for a few minutes and try to convince him of something requiring a check, then rest for another hour, and that'd be two short rests, but if you just rested for the same period of time, it'd be one.

Oy vey.

Yes you need better definition on this than that, if you are going to balance around it. It'd be much easier to just balance around an assumption that every hour resting counted as a "short rest".