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

[tuxgeo]

First, on topic to the thread: I liked how they did spell preparation and spell slots. It seems to have the best of both worlds, combining the tactical decision-making of preparing spells ahead of time with the flexibility of using the slots only at the time of casting. I'll have to see it in play, of course, but on first read it looks promising.

It seems so simple and obvious now, i wonder why it wasn't done before. I think it also opens the door for future creative spell design. For those of us that like Feats (I do) I can see powerful feats changing the way you use spell slots. Maybe that's already baked in, i haven't looked that close.

We already had a variation on that in the playtest: the Bard class never prepared spells, and they didn't need a feat to give them that feature.
Instead, they used simple memorization: they learned their spells so thoroughly that they didn't need a spellbook to hold them, nor a prepared list to fill out daily. I trust that the PHB will give us that class option, and if it does then there's one creative way of doing things already baked into the rules.

 

[Obryn]

I'm a heterosexual cismale, but I felt it was very important to be inclusive. I spent 400ish of the 2400ish words in my review of Basic D&D for my Ain't It Cool News column discussing that paragraph. Aside from some pushback on the language used (some consider "hermaphrodite" a slur and that "trapped in a man's body" is an offensive way to describe someone who is trans), the response has been overwhelmingly positive. Except for, you know, the trolls who got upset because saying outright that everyone is welcome somehow offends them? Anyway, don't read the talkbacks on my review, there's a whole lot of that sort of stupid running around.

Holy cow, dude. The state of the comments on your article gives me a sad. Especially looking at which ones get voted up.

 

[Thalionalfirin]

Considering how many months it took us to find a DM, that's not likely. San Francisco is such a paradox of 'tons of geeks, tons of gamers, DMs... hello, DMs...?' *crickets*

The East Bay is even worse.

 

[Umbran]

Considering how many months it took us to find a DM, that's not likely. San Francisco is such a paradox of 'tons of geeks, tons of gamers, DMs... hello, DMs...?' *crickets*

I don't think that has anything to do with being in San Francisco. That's a general issue, we hear it from people everywhere.

Running a game takes a lot of work, and doesn't give the same payoff as playing does. So, yes, GMs are a bit on the rare side.

 

[Abstruse]

Holy cow, dude. The state of the comments on your article gives me a sad. Especially looking at which ones get voted up.

It's AICN talkbacks. I expected the backlash and my editor's been deleting the more egregious ones. If you can see the ones he's left, you can guess how bad those were.

But yeah, it's sad, but I also like how many people were tilting at the windwill of responding to those comments as well, and there's actually at least two really civilized and nuanced discussions of bigotry, free speech, gender identity, and race relations buried in the mess.

 

[tuxgeo]

Nice review, Abstruse.

Here's the review for the rest of us.

Since Kobold Stew is the poster who originated this thread, I guess the above link makes Abstruse's review fair game for comments in this thread.

One minor nitpick: the review says, "Proficiency comes in a few varieties but all except armor do the same thing. . . . Armor proficiency, however, works a little differently. You still get the bonus to your Armor Class when wearing the armor, but you get disadvantage on any ability checks, saving throws, and attack rolls, plus you can’t cast any spells."

That's not how I read it. As I understand it, you do not get your proficiency bonus to your Armor Class. Also, the disadvantages listed only apply when you wear armor with which you do not have proficiency.

 

[JC99]

That's not how I read it. As I understand it, you do not get your proficiency bonus to your Armor Class. Also, the disadvantages listed only apply when you wear armor with which you do not have proficiency.

"Proficiency comes in a few varieties but all except armor do the same thing. . . . Armor proficiency, however, works a little differently. You still get the [armor's AC] bonus to your Armor Class when wearing the armor [if you are not proficient] , but you get disadvantage on any ability checks, saving throws, and attack rolls, plus you can’t cast any spells."

I added bold brackets that clarify what I thought was the author's intent.

 

[evileeyore]

It's remarkable because in forty years of D&D, this is the first time a core book has explicitly spelled out that characters aren't required to conform to binary notions of gender.

It's nice D&D is finally catching up with some of the rest of us.

 

[Obryn]

It's AICN talkbacks. I expected the backlash and my editor's been deleting the more egregious ones. If you can see the ones he's left, you can guess how bad those were.

Yeah, the ones left are basically "I'm no bigot, I just don't ever want to acknowledge that gay people exist or see them or anything."

 

[Abstruse]

Since Kobold Stew is the poster who originated this thread, I guess the above link makes Abstruse's review fair game for comments in this thread.

One minor nitpick: the review says, "Proficiency comes in a few varieties but all except armor do the same thing. . . . Armor proficiency, however, works a little differently. You still get the bonus to your Armor Class when wearing the armor, but you get disadvantage on any ability checks, saving throws, and attack rolls, plus you can’t cast any spells."

That's not how I read it. As I understand it, you do not get your proficiency bonus to your Armor Class. Also, the disadvantages listed only apply when you wear armor with which you do not have proficiency.

That's just poor wording on my part because I had to correct the original sentence after re-reading the armor section. I had originally written that you had to be proficient in the armor to get the armor class bonus, but that's just flat out wrong. In correcting that, I worded it in an ambiguous way. The intent was that you still get the ARMOR'S bonus to AC specifically, not your proficiency bonus. So me trying to fix my mistake made an awkward and ambiguous sentence. Oops! ^_^;;