joseph
Level 4 Theurgist
Posts: 142
|
Post by joseph on Jul 24, 2014 12:55:07 GMT -6
when i read the basic pdf, i was put off by the healing mechanics and the max hp at first level thing. i still don't like the healing rules. but...combat is very deadly. I agree. There was an optional healing system in the play rest called "all around slower healing" which I used almost exclusively. Anyway, yes this is a well designed game. I've seen a lot of comparisons between this version of D&D and older editions, but it's kind of apples and oranges. An astute reader will note similarities and influences from every edition, but really... it's a different game. Play it, I say. If you enjoy it, accept it as a different edition and keep playing. And there's certainly nothing wrong with playing multiple editions.... I'm not boxing up my AS&SH anytime soon!
|
|
|
Post by tetramorph on Jul 29, 2014 8:23:26 GMT -6
|
|
|
Post by thorswulf on Jul 29, 2014 11:00:34 GMT -6
I broke down and bought the starter set. So it isn't B/X, but it seems pretty good. My FLGS buddy Paul said at the very least you can play with it as it is and have fun. You are only out $20.00 if you don't like it. He and I have had the debate about inflation and printing costs and actually I tend to agree with hi point that for the money role playing is still fairly cheap. I drop more than $50.00 on minis so I have no real room to argue about game books..... My biggest complaint about the PDF of the basic rules is how to staple the d**n thing together! I'm thinking stitching it is probably the way to go....
|
|
|
Post by vladtolenkov on Jul 31, 2014 16:16:31 GMT -6
It occurs to me that WOTC saw that lots of people preferred older editions over 3.X/Pathfinder and 4E because ultimately they are simpler and quicker to play.
One piece of market research that Mearls mentioned a few months ago was the fact that in terms of people totally unfamiliar with D&D they had a real stumbling block. He told the story of a guy who spent around 90 minutes or so rolling up a 4E character, and he was quite enjoying himself once the game started. His character was killed in the midst of the session, and his response was that he wasn't particularly interested in playing D&D again. Why? Because while he enjoyed the game and didn't mind that his character had died--he wasn't particularly interested in spending another 90 minutes rolling up another character.
I thinks lots of people (maybe even MOST) JUST WANT TO PLAY and are less interested in tinkering with character builds or optimizing a character or whatever. 5E may not be as simple as Holmes, Moldvay,Mentzer or OD&D but it's WAY better than later editions in terms of start up time. Has this been your experience with the game? How long does it take to roll up a character?
|
|
|
Post by Red Baron on Jul 31, 2014 16:59:28 GMT -6
The free pdf of the basic rules is wordy and has too many unnecessary tables. Some of stuff in there is decent, but it doesn't belong in the basic rules.
Despite being simpler than other wotc editions, rolling up a character in 5e is a cumbersome process. For a new player, the 5e basic rules might as well be 3.x or 4e.
A basic game should be concise. The first 20 pages of Moldvay cover what the 5e basic does in 100. Cut the fluff. Cut the personality tables and lists of racial names and all that other crap.
A basic game should focus on low-level play. A player rolling up his first character doesn't need to be bothered with what happens at level 20, or even level 6 for that matter. Tell me what happends at levels 1 & 2, and I can extrapolate from there or buy the advanced game if I like what I see.
|
|
|
Post by Finarvyn on Jul 31, 2014 18:18:05 GMT -6
I think that the Basic rules set is way too wordy for my liking, but I'm glad that they put out a decent product that will (hopefully) satisfy an entire spectrum of gamers and not just ones with my particular likes and dislikes. The irony is that if the Basic rules set is too brief folks complain about it. If there is too much stuff in the Basic rules set folks complain about that, too. Sort of a lose-lose for WotC. Anyway, I like the Basic rules so far and can't wait for the Player's Handbook. I think the PH hits my local store a week from tomorrow.
|
|
|
Post by cooper on Jul 31, 2014 21:42:47 GMT -6
Given the, "D&D Adventurerers League" that WotC is attempting to pull off, it does seem rather necessary for them to still be "wordy" and overly didactic even in the basic set as the basic set is billed as also being legal for tournament play.
|
|
|
Post by Vile Traveller on Jul 31, 2014 21:56:53 GMT -6
Are the personality tables necessary from a rules viewpoint? I mean, could they have been left out of the Basic PDF, or are they needed in the game? Still haven't had a chance to test these rules at the table.
|
|
|
Post by kesher on Jul 31, 2014 22:28:41 GMT -6
They're not necessary, if by that you mean "Do they have a mechanical impact on the game"...
|
|
|
Post by krusader74 on Jul 31, 2014 23:06:29 GMT -6
The free pdf of the basic rules is wordy and has too many unnecessary tables. Not sure if someone already mentioned this, but Konstantin M made a 23-page condensed, 5.83" x 8.26" PDF and ODT of the basic rules, which I find more appealing than the original---less wordy, fewer frills.
|
|
|
Post by xmanowarx on Aug 1, 2014 0:40:57 GMT -6
if you leave out rolling on the background charts you can have a character ready to go in 5 minutes. roll stats, pick a race and a class, mark off your proficiencies, take the starting equipment packages and you're good. if you want to buy equipment and stuff, add maybe 3 minutes. if you're picking spells add another 2-5 minutes. while it's not as simple as 3 lbb od&d or bx, it's nowhere near as complicated as 2e, 3.x or 4. not even close - it's somewhere in between bx and 1e (closer to 1e).
|
|
|
Post by Finarvyn on Aug 1, 2014 4:54:49 GMT -6
The free pdf of the basic rules is wordy and has too many unnecessary tables. Not sure if someone already mentioned this, but Konstantin M made a 23-page condensed, 5.83" x 8.26" PDF and ODT of the basic rules, which I find more appealing than the original---less wordy, fewer frills. That's really cool. Sort of like having "refernce sheets" for 5E.
|
|
|
Post by Falconer on Aug 1, 2014 7:59:52 GMT -6
|
|
joseph
Level 4 Theurgist
Posts: 142
|
Post by joseph on Aug 1, 2014 8:34:37 GMT -6
I think what we need to consider, concerning the additional tables (traits, bonds, ideals), is that they are there to show new players how to create a background story for their characters. Also, players coming from 4E may have focused on character optimization, with little thought to story... These tables may be helpful to them as well. Particularly considering that WotC has specifically stated that they are changing focus to a story - based game. Those tables, while unnecessary for veteran players, offer excellent cues for new players to build their characters upon.
Konstantin M's pdf is pretty awesome btw.
|
|
|
Post by Red Baron on Aug 1, 2014 17:00:55 GMT -6
The background and personality of your character are things you kind of figure out through play, not when you roll up your character. For the first couple sessions, I have no idea what my character is going to do in any given situation until it occurs, and seeing what happens is part of the fun.
|
|
joseph
Level 4 Theurgist
Posts: 142
|
Post by joseph on Aug 2, 2014 4:29:05 GMT -6
Redbaron, I agree that is a legitimate route and one that I have used in the past. Mater of fact i would say that is how things usually work out in game play. But, I've also created background and character concept before rolling anything and find that it works quite well. In either case the value of the random tables is not diminished for the new player.
|
|
|
Post by Finarvyn on Aug 2, 2014 5:41:35 GMT -6
The background and personality of your character are things you kind of figure out through play, not when you roll up your character. For the first couple sessions, I have no idea what my character is going to do in any given situation until it occurs, and seeing what happens is part of the fun. Redbaron, I agree with you on this but think that Joseph has the right idea. It's not for guys like us, but instead for a lot of the 3E/4E generation who are used to a player being a pile of statistics. When my son plays a video game he doesn't bother to worry about motivation, and my limited experience with 4E seemed very similar to this. Folks were led from one battle to the next and the larger "why do I do this?" element was often ignored. Also, I like the notion that characters might have to pick a weakness because 4E characters often start at avereage-to-above and go up from there. The idea of having low stats and/or weaknesses may be totally alien to many newer players. Bottom line, for folks who were taught D&D in a "roll" environment need to be taught how to play D&D with "role" instead. I think that having rules for this in the Basic doccument can be nothing but a good thing. And for the folks who develop character personality and goals through play -- well, in those campaigns the DM can choose to ignore those rules. Just my two coppers.
|
|
|
Post by Red Baron on Aug 2, 2014 8:48:53 GMT -6
I can understand that.
|
|
|
Post by derv on Aug 12, 2014 15:27:43 GMT -6
|
|
|
Post by krusader74 on Aug 12, 2014 23:47:25 GMT -6
The Player's D&D Basic Rules v0.2 is only about 15 pages longer than v0.1. The changelog summarizes the changes: Added (1) acid splash and poison spray spells, (2) noble background, (3) Appendix B containing the Forgotten Realms deities, (4) Appendix C containing descriptions of the five factions in the D&D Adventurers League, and lastly (5) legal text to allow reproduction for personal purposes. (That last change may prove very important if you ever want to take it to a Kinkos to get it printed off and bound into a book!) The big change is v0.1 of the Dungeon Master's D&D Basic Rules: about 50 pages of monsters, plus a couple pages for each of: NPCs, building combat encounters, and magic items.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 13, 2014 0:43:15 GMT -6
After taking a brief look at the Dungeon Master's pdf, I notice that there is an awful lot of experience handed out. Monsters are worth significantly more than that I am used to and to top it off there is a table for experience for an adventuring day. Now I assume this allows a DM to simplify the experience process by letting them award experience per day adventured instead of calculating exp. totals from encounters. The thing that gets me is a party of adventures can reach 3rd level in three days. Granted in the context of OD&D this might equate to three separate stints into the local dungeon, however, that would also equate to a lot of treasure being recovered in OD&D also.
|
|
|
Post by ravenheart87 on Aug 13, 2014 1:08:58 GMT -6
You can reach the first three levels quickly, that was intentional. After that advancement slows down a bit. I'm thinking about halving all XP.
Can somebody tell me how the "all around slower healing" mentioned by joseph worked in the playtest?
|
|
|
Post by Vile Traveller on Aug 13, 2014 3:12:11 GMT -6
I might have to try significantly lowering XP for monsters and adding a 1gp = 1XP rule ...
|
|
joseph
Level 4 Theurgist
Posts: 142
|
Post by joseph on Aug 13, 2014 14:33:28 GMT -6
You can reach the first three levels quickly, that was intentional. After that advancement slows down a bit. I'm thinking about halving all XP. Can somebody tell me how the "all around slower healing" mentioned by joseph worked in the playtest? Ravenheart, unless someone beats me to it, I'll pull up the old files and copy the text directly from the rules. At work right now, but I will try to get to it tonight.
|
|
|
Post by ravenheart87 on Aug 13, 2014 22:41:12 GMT -6
Ravenheart, unless someone beats me to it, I'll pull up the old files and copy the text directly from the rules. At work right now, but I will try to get to it tonight. Thanks in advance.
|
|
|
Post by derv on Aug 16, 2014 7:37:39 GMT -6
Quick question for anyone already running 5e. I've been looking the Basics over and one thing i have not seen addressed is Monsters Reactions/Morale. How are others handling encounters where older editions would sometimes use the reaction table to determine what happens next? For instance, if the party decides to flee how are you determining whether they will be pursued? Am I missing something in how the mechanics of 5e work in these situations? Or are others randomly adjudicating on the spot on a case by case basis?
|
|
EdOWar
Level 5 Thaumaturgist
Posts: 315
|
Post by EdOWar on Aug 16, 2014 17:56:05 GMT -6
5e uses XP budgets to build encounters, much like 3e/4e and Pathfinder. Considering an XP budget is balanced towards a typical party of a given size, I think the assumption is that most monsters will simply fight to the death as, per the budget XP allocated, the party should be able to beat the encounter. If you're not keen on using XP budgets to build balanced encounters, then you'll need to come up with house rule for morale to check if monsters flee. Or, just make a judgment call.
|
|
joseph
Level 4 Theurgist
Posts: 142
|
Post by joseph on Aug 17, 2014 6:01:59 GMT -6
You can reach the first three levels quickly, that was intentional. After that advancement slows down a bit. I'm thinking about halving all XP. Can somebody tell me how the "all around slower healing" mentioned by joseph worked in the playtest? Here it is: All-Around Slower Recovery: At the end of a long rest, you regain no hit points, you regain a number of Hit Dice equal to 1 + your Constitution modifier, and you can spend any number of them without using a healer’s kit use.
|
|
joseph
Level 4 Theurgist
Posts: 142
|
Post by joseph on Aug 17, 2014 6:16:43 GMT -6
Quick question for anyone already running 5e. I've been looking the Basics over and one thing i have not seen addressed is Monsters Reactions/Morale. How are others handling encounters where older editions would sometimes use the reaction table to determine what happens next? For instance, if the party decides to flee how are you determining whether they will be pursued? Am I missing something in how the mechanics of 5e work in these situations? Or are others randomly adjudicating on the spot on a case by case basis? This always been a role-play situation for me. Is there a reason for the monster(s) to fight to the death? To parlay? To give chase? To surrender? The DM can make these decisions on the fly based on (1) how he wants things to go, or (2) what makes the most sense. I have traditionally ignored things like the "XP budget" for encounter building. That said, the game will work just fine if you want to roll on the Reaction Table of your choice, be it 0E, 1E, Labyrinth Lord, etc. Easy house rule.
|
|
|
Post by ravenheart87 on Aug 18, 2014 1:01:30 GMT -6
Here it is: All-Around Slower Recovery: At the end of a long rest, you regain no hit points, you regain a number of Hit Dice equal to 1 + your Constitution modifier, and you can spend any number of them without using a healer’s kit use. Thank you very much. This seems to be a good option, I was planning to do something similar.
|
|