D&D 5E Unexpected but (mostly) awesome new rules in Basic

[Particle_Man]

I also like the group ability check for stealth. It, and the passive perception rule, solves the issue of multiple sneakers vs. multiple potential observers.

 

[pemerton]

The group ability check rule (p. 59) is amazing!

I also like the group ability check for stealth.

This rules if from 4e. The wording of the first two paragraphs on p 59 is almost identical to the wording on p 128 of the Rules Compendium.

 

[Particle_Man]

Ah, I hadn't had that much exposure to 4th.

 

[Henry]

Am I reading the Op Attack rules correctly, in that two fighters who move into reach of one another:

(A) can move, attack, and finish moving to the other side of their opponent, as long as they stay in reach the whole time, and not trigger an Op Attack, and
(B) could basically circle one another like fighting dogs, trading blows without triggering on one another?

If I read this right, it means a rogue can get into flanking pretty easily, or a fighter could very easily slide behind enemy lines to aid his rogue buddy. I like it a lot.

EDIT: scratch that rogue part, I just realized the sneak attack rules had changed too. You don't even need to flank, just gang up on them!

 

[Li Shenron]

Any thoughts on Exotic weapons making a comeback? I have a tendency to really like weird weapons, especially loved the double weapons, even if I never really utilized them personally.

I have been wondering the same during the playtest. In some campaign settings, some cultures or races use signature weapons that are supposed not to be immediately usable by others. In 3e, the Exotic Weapon proficiency meant that nobody was proficient by default, but you could learn by spending one feat. In 5e, feats are so large that you can't just pick a proficiency, you have to take the whole feat (which maybe represents something inappropriate, or that you're just not interested in).

Right now, I think the only usable rule for acquiring additional proficiencies is the downtime rules. Those are OK for a DM like me who actually likes spacing adventures and events, and also to include some narrative requirements in some cases. But they may not be OK for someone else since they are a bit free-form.

 

[Manbearcat]

I guess this is the right place for this post.

Just perusing the spell list and I see 5 different resolution mechanics being used. This is just for spells in the Basic set. I mean I suppose its too much to ask to just have one singular resolution mechanic (d20 attack vs target number or always a saving throw for example) for all spells, but is it completely necessary for 5 variants on "roll d20, add some stuff, compare it to this other thing and see what happens" in the Basic game alone? That doesn't exactly scream "streamlined, simple core" (not sure if that was even a design intent though). I thought I recalled outcries against extraneous, fiddly stuff not too long ago.

If exceptions like this are embedded all over the system, that doesn't bode well for ease/quickness of handling at the table. That is especially so as game options/creatures/spells proliferate. If I were looking to play this game, this would be one of the first things that would need to be modulinated-ified-ismed.

Edit - ack! Amusingly enough, I meant to post this in another thread. Move along, nothing to see here.

 

[Baumi]

Sorry if that was already mentioned (I haven't read the whole threat yet)...

I really like the fact that Rituals work differently for the Cleric and the Wizard. The Wizard is truly the master of Rituals, he doesn't even need to prepare the spell perform the Ritual, while the Cleric has to. On the other hand the Cleric has the advantage that he automatically knows every spell, while the Wizard can only cast a Ritual of spells he have learned.