5e basic and Starter set- what do people think?

[hawkwind]

Being in the UK I have yet to see the starter set but I have spent the weekend looking at PDF and vaguely planning a face to face game for a few weeks time. I like what I see but its not going to make me stop playing Pathfinder on Fantasy Grounds any time soon

[Griogre]

5E basic seems solid, I spent part of a couple days looking at it and ran a 5E game Friday night when we didn't have enough to play in my normal game (the 5E ruleset is still a work in process but serviceable). I don't think its going to change anyone playing other games over to it unless they want something fast and simple, but I don't think it was meant too really. I think its mostly aimed at new players and people teaching new players and the fact it eases people into 5E is both intensional and a bonus.

Personally, I'll run the Tyranny of Dragons modules before come to any final conclusions one way or another on 5E.

[dr_venture]

I'd be curious to see a comparison between Castles & Crusades & 5e - I have seen a few cool features that 5e has that C&C does not, but there seem to be a fair number of overlapping features. I would think that Griogre is correct, though: it's mostly just a battle for new players or the undecided at this point. There are so many game systems out there, it's hard to imagine a new system sweeping through the gaming community and making people change their habits.Still, 5e seems to be a move in direction of the style of gaming I enjoy, so I'm curious. too.

[Griogre]

dr_venture, from what I have seen Basic D&D is still more complex than C&C, though not much for veteran RPGers. Primarily because of races and subraces, clerical domains, and clerics and wizards having the same spell preparation rules. Of particular interest is the front and center adding of roleplaying hooks like backgrounds, flaws, bonds, trinkets and Inspiration. These parts could be easily lifted and dropped into C&C though the backgrounds add complexity and are limited.

Basic D&D uses a race + sub-race system to customize the character bonuses towards a specific class/build. IE Elf gives you +2 to Dex plus other general elf abilities and then you choose to be a Wood Elf or a High Elf which gives you a lesser stat bump to different stats depending on the sub-race and other sub-race specific abilities. There's nothing earthshaking here but it does allow an extra customization option for each race other than Human.

Clerics and Wizards follow the same rules for preparing and casting spells in BD&D. Its a hybrid system of spell preparation and spontaneous casting of *prepared* spells. Based on level you have so many "spell slots" to cast spells. At the start of the day you prepare a number of spells dependant on character level, class, domain, etc. Then the character can cast any one of his prepared spells that will fit in a spell slot and expend the spell slot. IE you can't cast a 2nd level spell in a 1st level spell slot, however you can upcast spells in higher level spell slots with many spells becoming more powerful when cast in bigger spell slots. Casting a spell doesn't erase the prepared spell from memory.

Those are the things that stick in my mind right now.

[Irondrake]

I've been running 5E since the early playtests. The Basic D&D PDF was a very pleasant surprise actually. Most of what I didn't really care for seems to have been alleviated. It runs closer to 2E/3E...while still being a newer game. I am one of those who played 4E but didn't really care for it as much as all of the other editions. That just didn't scream D&D to me. 5E brings it back home for me while still having some innovative newness. I've tried other systems, but I always keep coming back to D&D just because that's what I grew up on...despite having worked with TSR back in my GEnie days as a TSRO heh. Ok, so I may be a little biased, but anyway...its all my opinion.

[leozelig]

Yeah, I agree. I ran a 4E campaign for a couple years and enjoyed it, but it was different. I will definitely play or DM "Tyranny of Dragons" when it comes out. It's looking like the talented folks here at Fantasy Grounds will have the ruleset polished up by then :)

Specifically, I like that they trimmed the level max to 20, and I really like what they did with wizard (what happened to calling that class "mage" btw?) spells and how you can use a higher-level spell slot to prepare a lower-level spell, in some cases to greater effect. I also like how saves/skill checks are based on ability scores - kind of a solid common-sense move, I think.

To put my opinion in perspective, I tend to like OSR-type systems. DCC RPG is my favorite right now, but I have played Labyrinth Lord and AD&D (1st and 2nd Edition) pretty regularly over the past couple years.

[GunnarGreybeard]

Honestly, I have never played any version beyond 2e AD&D so I cannot really comment in detail beyond that point but the kids and I rolled up characters yesterday and ran through some check situations and encounters to give a it go. It was really smooth and reminded me a lot of the old school versions (OD&D and 1e) and what I think they could have been with a little tweaking (I'm looking at your THAC0).

At first I was just going to stick with the free Basic Rules and go with those, and convert my stacks of 1e and 2e stuff to it on my own, but after re-reading the docs and that little playtest I am seriously leaning towards getting the 3 main books when they are released.

[dr_venture]

There is still a part of me that wants to be excited about a new version of D&D, but I just don't want to invest myself into a system that will almost certainly be abandoned by WotC in a few years. At this point I just see all of their new versions as sort-of dead men walking as soon as they're released, as their profit model has been based on repackaging the core books every few years. Which is too bad, as I think all their systems have had merits. So I think I'll be sticking to C&C for the foreseeable future -- it's as close to a lasting version of D&D that I'm likely to find, I think... other than just playing an old version of D&D :D

[leozelig]

Honestly, I have never played any version beyond 2e AD&D so I cannot really comment in detail beyond that point but the kids and I rolled up characters yesterday and ran through some check situations and encounters to give a it go. It was really smooth and reminded me a lot of the old school versions (OD&D and 1e) and what I think they could have been with a little tweaking (I'm looking at your THAC0).

At first I was just going to stick with the free Basic Rules and go with those, and convert my stacks of 1e and 2e stuff to it on my own, but after re-reading the docs and that little playtest I am seriously leaning towards getting the 3 main books when they are released.

I must say, they did a good job of creating incentive to buy the 3 books with the free basic rules.

dr_v, I was checking out C&C the other day. I could definitely see myself playing that. The best thing about the latest D&D release is that they are actively releasing products for it, but these days, there are so many quality alternatives. But I tend to pick up the latest version so I can play the latest adventures from WotC. It seems like it's easier to find a group for that, too.

[Griogre]

There is still a part of me that wants to be excited about a new version of D&D, but I just don't want to invest myself into a system that will almost certainly be abandoned by WotC in a few years. At this point I just see all of their new versions as sort-of dead men walking as soon as they're released, as their profit model has been based on repackaging the core books every few years. Which is too bad, as I think all their systems have had merits. So I think I'll be sticking to C&C for the foreseeable future -- it's as close to a lasting version of D&D that I'm likely to find, I think... other than just playing an old version of D&D :D

dr_venture I totally understand you. However, what *is* interesting about this release is you get the vive its not going to be a 5 year project. Its too early to tell for sure but the way they are doing things this time around seems different. 1) They are going to update their rule book printings with a process that takes at least a year (D&D has not had printings with updated content since AD&D). 2) They did not hire a bunch of designers to dump at Christmas, and let a third party do their first adventure path. IE they have a small sustainable team. 3) They are giving away the basic rules to grow their number of players (and help market their core books).

These are all interesting differences from the way they released 3.x and 4E. The life cycle might be a long time on this one. Regardless, in you case I think it would be worthwhile to read the parts of the basic rules that interest you since you should be able to drop them into low level C&C verbatim should you wish. The things that are going to be different is C&C characters are going to be more powerful at higher levels because Basic D&D doesn't do per level bonuses to hit. They do have proficiency bonus but particularly before they changed that to start at 2 it was a mirror of the old AD&D expected magic bonuses per level table. In other words their is not any requirements to give out magic items at all in Basic D&D.

[Sigurd]

This is very much my personal perspective at this point. I'm not claiming this is the general case or that anyone else's game ideas aren't the right ideas for them.


The economics of a big company publishing a game are so poisonous. They need to recreate and make people buy new things every month. I really wonder if the simplicity in this version will stick around or will be supplanted by "advanced rules" or "expanded rules" in short order.

I like the OGL as a way to constrain companies to stay where their costs are low. I'd rather play a game with a community center, not a corporate one. Similarly, a small company, with smaller costs might keep a game alive by not overselling it.

Even pathfinder - which started with some of the best core books - has so much cruft now. Yeah, you don't have to play with them, but a table of five or six tends to open up sources rather than control them.


I'm glad they went simple, because I think that's the future. I have trouble trusting them as a company or seeing their angle to keep it that way. I give kudos to other, smaller companies who have liberated their rule systems for others to use. Thanks, it makes for a fun environment for the players.

[hawkwind]

Having just read the new starter adventure I'm bit do sure about magic item scarcity, there seems to be plenty of magic and the adventure even features a "magic forge" that is capable of churning out magic weapons every couple of hours. Saying that I like the new version do far but I do think low level casters are very powerful

[hawkwind]

I finally got to play the starter set on saturday and fun was had by all. i was impressed how much of the adventure we got through in 3 and a half hours of play. Loads of death saves had to be made and in the last combat of the night all the party bar one "Folk Hero" was left standing. The players seemed happy with the rules and said it just seemed like dnd to them and not something really new! The only complaint was that there is no option to "Charge!" . I the basis of this session I can see 5e replacing Pathfinder for Face to Face gaming in my house

[Dershem]

So my current thoughts on charge until I see something official is advantage on attack and grant advantage on attacks against you... my .02

[Irondrake]

The last thing I heard from Mike Mearls was "there is no Charge", from Twitter. That mechanic seems to have been removed. Nothing stopping you from house ruling it into your game though :) You may want to see what the PHB holds in August for tactical play :)

[dr_venture]

FWIW, C&C's mechanic for a charge is +2 damage and -4 AC for the attacker... so maybe +2 damage if attacker hits, but advantage to people attacking the charger? FWIW.

[Griogre]

Advantage is a very big stick. Personally +1 to hit and -1 to AC seems more in the spirit of 5E. Pluses are quite rare for easy to do stuff.

[Emerald_wind]

So far I like what I see. The Starter Set and Basic Rules seem solid and user friendly. It has the old school feel, reminds me of the D&D I grew up with, yet has a freshness to it that hopefully won't go away too quickly. I do like the general magic scarcity, characters aren't NEEDING newer better items all the time (not saying they don't want them, just they don't need them). I am reserving final judgement until the Player's Handbook comes out and I get to play or DM Tyranny of Dragons.

[Griogre]

So far I like what I see. The Starter Set and Basic Rules seem solid and user friendly. It has the old school feel, reminds me of the D&D I grew up with, yet has a freshness to it that hopefully won't go away too quickly. I do like the general magic scarcity, characters aren't NEEDING newer better items all the time (not saying they don't want them, just they don't need them). I am reserving final judgement until the Player's Handbook comes out and I get to play or DM Tyranny of Dragons.

Ha! That's exactly the way I feel. :) 5E's been fun so far and I *really* like feel and the speed of combat... But I want to see a run up from 1st to 15th-ish to get a better feel for campaign design and long term class, monster and character balance.

[krag]

I have been playing 5e with my Sunday group (as a player) and I must say, I thoroughly enjoy it. I'm primarily a 3.5e guy, and I want a balance of RPing and Combat, and 5e does that. 5e seems to be a mixture of 2.0 ADnD (storytelling), 3.5 (Balance of RP and Combat), and Pathfinder (Well done simplistic gameplay). It seems to me that Wizards is trying to ween off of the "Combat heavy" style of 4e due to Pathfinder's success in that department, and they want to focus more-so on the storytelling aspect. As a 3.5e player I find this to be a home run for Wizards.

So,
Want lots of combat? Pathfinder or 4e
Wants a balance of Storytelling and Combat? 3.5e or 5e
Want loads of storytelling? Try Vampire the Masquerade or another d10 system.

Again, I don't see editions as "better" than the other, just a different flavor, and not everybody loves Chocolate Chip Mint.

[DrakosDJ]

Well, I just got my copy of the %E Players. Still going through it, but it is interesting so far.

I am happy to see that they did make the Warlocks function a little different than regular casters.

[krag]

Also, it seems like Wizards decided to not get as in-depth with many of the rules, so that the DM makes most calls, and there wont be players arguing about rules.

[DrakosDJ]

It;s the new model for D&D. The basic system is "rules lite" but they will be putting out add-on's full of optional rules to allow play groups to plat with the level of rules thay like. So if your group likes more tacticle play there will be a tactical combat plug-in for that.

That was part of the stated design purpose when they first announced the new rules were comming.

[Dershem]

So far after reading the PHB I am fairly impressed.

[Trenloe]

I'm liking it so far. I'll be interested to see what form 5e takes in 1 year, 2, years, etc.. The usual Wizards approach is to release more player content than adventures (based off my experience of them over the past few years). But, with the Tyranny of Dragons adventures coming out I'm hoping there is going to be a long term commitment to scenarios being released outside of Dungeon magazine - if there's even going to be a Dungeon magazine going forward?

[krag]

I know as a DM, I have hated it when people try to use Dragon Mag races/classes/spells. 50% of the time they weren't balanced well (I know, a stupid accusation made by a 3.5 player) or it was hard as heck to get your hands on a copy, physical or digital otherwise. So I will gladly welcome supplement books with open arms.

[Trenloe]

I'm just curious how, if there are a lot of player related supplement books, that will effect the current streamlined play we're experiencing. I can see that they might use the odd plugin, as mentioned by DrakosDJ above. But, if there are a lot of optional plugins on top of the basic rules then this could make the supplements quite confusing or full of "use X if you're using plugin Y, use A if you're using plugin B" or just result in people only getting a small amount out of supplements. It'll be very interesting to see how it all plays out...

[krag]

I'd imagine it be sort of like Unearthed Arcana was for 3.5... it was nice if you liked that sort of thing, but it wasn't necessary to use with any of the other books.