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

[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.