Author Topic: D&D Next Basic Ruleset is out!  (Read 23961 times)

Offline Libertad

  • Epic Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 3618
    • View Profile
    • My Fantasy and Gaming Blog
D&D Next Basic Ruleset is out!
« on: July 03, 2014, 07:41:56 PM »

Offline SolEiji

  • Epic Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 3041
  • I am 120% Eiji.
    • View Profile
    • D&D Wiki.org, not .com
Re: D&D Next Basic Ruleset is out!
« Reply #1 on: July 03, 2014, 07:49:45 PM »
Am I reading correctly?  The highest ability score before modifiers is a 15?
Mudada.

Offline Raineh Daze

  • Epic Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 10577
  • hi
    • View Profile
Re: D&D Next Basic Ruleset is out!
« Reply #2 on: July 03, 2014, 07:56:10 PM »
Am I reading correctly?  The highest ability score before modifiers is a 15?

That's the array, Eiji. Right before that it mentions 4d6, drop lowest.

I see they kept the 'humans get +1 to everything' crap. Because heaven forbid that the generic human be the worst at anything.

Fighters still look boring as hell. They get a truly stupid amount of ability score increases, but you can never naturally increase things about 20, so all fighters are basically going to end up with the same ability score. And... well, they're otherwise lacking in stuff to do. Essentially making them the worst class to get a few bonus actions. :/
« Last Edit: July 03, 2014, 08:01:24 PM by Raineh Daze »

Offline SolEiji

  • Epic Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 3041
  • I am 120% Eiji.
    • View Profile
    • D&D Wiki.org, not .com
Re: D&D Next Basic Ruleset is out!
« Reply #3 on: July 03, 2014, 08:12:12 PM »
Am I reading correctly?  The highest ability score before modifiers is a 15?

That's the array, Eiji. Right before that it mentions 4d6, drop lowest.

I see they kept the 'humans get +1 to everything' crap. Because heaven forbid that the generic human be the worst at anything.

Fighters still look boring as hell. They get a truly stupid amount of ability score increases, but you can never naturally increase things about 20, so all fighters are basically going to end up with the same ability score. And... well, they're otherwise lacking in stuff to do. Essentially making them the worst class to get a few bonus actions. :/

I see the array, but look at the point buy.  How is one to make a 16?

At page 19 for far.  Things are... interesting.  The proficiency idea actually is kind of keen, and harkens back to things such as Scaling Benefits and other houserules where you got a scaling universal thing everyone had.  As a rule numbers seem much smaller, and I don't know if that's good or bad yet.  I'm puzzled by the lack of races.  Only four?  Humans, elves, dwarves, and halflings?  Alright, the "strongheart halfling" is a moderately fair stand in for gnomes for the moment, but no orcs?  Half-races?  4 seems so limiting...

The +1 to everything humans is absurd, I agree.  I rather the variant human, +1/+1, the skill thing, and the feat.  Yes, it's still "dull" but its much more variable this time with a feat you can at least choose.

Still reading.  Overall reaction is "Huh".
Mudada.

Offline Raineh Daze

  • Epic Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 10577
  • hi
    • View Profile
Re: D&D Next Basic Ruleset is out!
« Reply #4 on: July 03, 2014, 08:19:40 PM »
Do remember this is the basic ruleset. It's sort of a baby PHB, DMG, and MM (I think?), when each of those tend to be individually longer than this whole PDF. XD

Offline SolEiji

  • Epic Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 3041
  • I am 120% Eiji.
    • View Profile
    • D&D Wiki.org, not .com
Re: D&D Next Basic Ruleset is out!
« Reply #5 on: July 03, 2014, 08:25:52 PM »
(EDIT: Basic ruleset eh, so that means there are more races and classes?  That is fair.)

So.... clerics get Miracle 1/week effectively.  Its flavorful but I wonder if this is abusable.  I do like how turn attempts now fuel domain things.

Fighters almost look like rangers now, what with 'fighting style'.  Hey, where is ranger?  4 classes?  Here too?  (Then again, basic ruleset...)

Rogue is looking pretty standard, didn't really sound any alarms but I am just glancing.

Looks like spell DCs now start at 8, likely to account for the proficiency and other changes.  I see we have ritual spells; that's a plus.

I've seen "having the advantage" several times so far in reference to attacking and saves, but I don't quite understand what it means.

Page 43, getting to items.  Still "Huh." about things.  I suppose that's good, better than I figured I'd be at this point.
Mudada.

Offline SolEiji

  • Epic Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 3041
  • I am 120% Eiji.
    • View Profile
    • D&D Wiki.org, not .com
Re: D&D Next Basic Ruleset is out!
« Reply #6 on: July 03, 2014, 09:32:48 PM »
Armor seems to have been simplified.  All light armors are Max Dex -, all mediums are Max Dex 2, and all Heavies are Max Dex 0.

The moving in heavy armor with sufficient strength is nice, though dwarves will feel envious that their racial trait isn't that grand now.

It seems to imply that in heavy armor you don't add Dex penalties.  So you could have -1 Dex, but wear full plate and not take that.  Why?

>Greatclub.  Simple weapon.

Oh thank freaking god, I never understood why it was martial.  It's a stick!  It's a bigger stick!

And exotic weapons appear to be gone.  Unless they're not in the basic; but this may be a good thing.  The only real distrinction there needs to be is between "rock" and "rock you need training for".

They seem to be doing the 3.0 weapon size thing, where halflings can't greatsword because greatswords are size X too big.  I wonder what they'd do if it was a small greatsword though.  Probably just call it a longsword for everyone else I imagine.

Two-handing weapons is now a weapon property which increases the base damage.  Looks like two-handing a morningstar, for example, won't do anything special.  I suppose this does support more sword & boarding, a plus.

The price for special ammo seems to be 1/10, not 1/50 this time.

"Modest" living seems to require 1 gp a day.  This is good because often NPCs are apparently supposed to live on coppers a day and be unable to afford more adventuring gear or even common tools.  This one seems more realistic; they're not PCs but I do expect them to fling around a few gold every so often.

Ah, advantages and disadvantages, here we go.  What's all this about... roll twice, take best/worst.  Alright.  Makes me wonder why Padded armor is BAD at stealth (it is listed as disadvantaged) but ok.

Skills.  I heard what they did with them before and it still doesn't quite sit with me, but it's not the worst idea.  At the least they do provide a list: it's shorter than I expected.  That may be fine then, though its heavy on mental skills and not so much physical.  The only question is; what determines which save you use?  I geuss it's defined per spell, like Fireball may be a Dex save but Feeblemind might be an Int save, or something.

Saves now seem to apply one for each ability score, resulting in Con saves, Int saves, Cha saves, and so forth.  This makes it so that all saves are important/you will have at least a few good saves if you're say all Strength or all Something-Else-That-Wasn't Dex/Con/Wis. 

I see they refer to bards, paladins, sorcerers, and warlocks.  Good, so other classes are about.

Pounce/Spring Attack appears to be built-in if I'm reading this correctly.  This is a good thing!

Looks like since BAB is gone everyone gets one attack, barring shinanigans and class features.

I'm liking the Dodge action.

Shoving (bull rush) is now an attack action, good.

Grappling is... short?  Ok, I haven't read what the grapple condition does to you, but they did a Pathfinder and made it simple.  Atheletics (CMB) vs Athletics or Acrobatics (CMD).  And that's good.

Damage typoes... negatic energy is now necrotic, thus removing the positive/negative scale.  Poison is recognized offically.  Psychic is a type, radiant is a type and is somewhere between "light" and "holy".  Sonic is now Thunder.

Dying is now a 3 round countdown of rolling above a 10 on a d20.  Extra attacks against a downed person count as failed rolls.  As such there's no need to account for negative hp.  (With the way it's worded you'd technically die at -Max Hp anyway).  This is good.  No more going from healthy to corpse because the 10 hp buffer wasn't enough.

Spells seem to have some psionic-style augmentation now for putting it in higher slots.



....alright, done reading!  Overall: Better than expected, not good enough to buy though.  I'd be interested in seeing it in action.
Mudada.

Offline Libertad

  • Epic Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 3618
    • View Profile
    • My Fantasy and Gaming Blog
Re: D&D Next Basic Ruleset is out!
« Reply #7 on: July 03, 2014, 11:31:23 PM »
So over on rpg.net and intangibility several trans* gamers noticed a nod towards inclusion in the "sex" entry.  The reaction has ranged from positive to mixed, although I haven't seen any really negative voices so far.

Quote
You don't need to be confined to binary notions of sex and gender. The elf god Corellon Larethian is often seen as androgynous or hermaphroditic, for example, and some elves in the multiverse are made in in Corellon's image. You could also play a female character who presents herself as a man, a man who feels trapped in a female body, or a bearded female dwarf who hates being mistaken for a male. Likewise, your character's sexual orientation is for you to decide.

So basically from what I hear, it's well-intention-ed if a little awkward in parts.  The term "hermaphroditic" is outdated, for example.  "Intersex" is now considered the respectful, and clinical term for people with both sex organs.  But overall many trans* people are happy about this.
« Last Edit: July 03, 2014, 11:43:51 PM by Libertad »

Offline X-Codes

  • DnD Handbook Writer
  • ****
  • Posts: 2001
  • White, Fuzzy, Sniper Rifle.
    • View Profile
Re: D&D Next Basic Ruleset is out!
« Reply #8 on: July 04, 2014, 03:26:48 AM »
Awkward.  That's a good word to describe that passage.

In any case, from a very cursory overview this is looking like some kind of bastardization of 3.5e and pre-3rd editions with a few snippets of things that actually worked in 4e, and, well... I'm not really convinced that it's justified it's existence, yet.  Maybe if they stop trying to prop up generic-ass weapon dude as it's own character class we can see some progress there.

Offline linklord231

  • Epic Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 3346
  • The dice are trying to kill me
    • View Profile
Re: D&D Next Basic Ruleset is out!
« Reply #9 on: July 04, 2014, 04:11:47 AM »
I'm totally fine with the bastardization of 3.5 and earlier d&d with the bits of 4e that worked.  In fact, that is precisely what I'd want out of a 5th edition. 
I'm not arguing, I'm explaining why I'm right.

Offline SolEiji

  • Epic Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 3041
  • I am 120% Eiji.
    • View Profile
    • D&D Wiki.org, not .com
Re: D&D Next Basic Ruleset is out!
« Reply #10 on: July 04, 2014, 04:30:00 AM »
I'm totally fine with the bastardization of 3.5 and earlier d&d with the bits of 4e that worked.  In fact, that is precisely what I'd want out of a 5th edition.

So you'll be running the first 5e PbP right?  :D  I'll be a halfling rogue and....
Mudada.

Offline linklord231

  • Epic Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 3346
  • The dice are trying to kill me
    • View Profile
Re: D&D Next Basic Ruleset is out!
« Reply #11 on: July 04, 2014, 05:06:56 AM »
That would involve deep-reading the rules first, which will have to wait until I finish fixing my truck  :(
I wouldn't mind though, provided we can get past the first "roll initiative!" without the game foundering  :lmao
I'm not arguing, I'm explaining why I'm right.

Offline Raineh Daze

  • Epic Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 10577
  • hi
    • View Profile
Re: D&D Next Basic Ruleset is out!
« Reply #12 on: July 04, 2014, 07:06:53 AM »
So over on rpg.net and intangibility several trans* gamers noticed a nod towards inclusion in the "sex" entry.  The reaction has ranged from positive to mixed, although I haven't seen any really negative voices so far.

Quote
You don't need to be confined to binary notions of sex and gender. The elf god Corellon Larethian is often seen as androgynous or hermaphroditic, for example, and some elves in the multiverse are made in in Corellon's image. You could also play a female character who presents herself as a man, a man who feels trapped in a female body, or a bearded female dwarf who hates being mistaken for a male. Likewise, your character's sexual orientation is for you to decide.

So basically from what I hear, it's well-intention-ed if a little awkward in parts.  The term "hermaphroditic" is outdated, for example.  "Intersex" is now considered the respectful, and clinical term for people with both sex organs.  But overall many trans* people are happy about this.

Clunky. Very, very clunky. It's 'inclusion for the sake of inclusion', which is a step forward I guess but an inherently depressing reason to do anything.

And telling people they could play androgynous elves is like saying you can play a dwarf with a beard. :rolleyes

As for the 'hermaphroditic' part: given that this is a god, I am taking that line at full face value. <.<

Offline SolEiji

  • Epic Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 3041
  • I am 120% Eiji.
    • View Profile
    • D&D Wiki.org, not .com
Re: D&D Next Basic Ruleset is out!
« Reply #13 on: July 04, 2014, 07:18:08 AM »
So over on rpg.net and intangibility several trans* gamers noticed a nod towards inclusion in the "sex" entry.  The reaction has ranged from positive to mixed, although I haven't seen any really negative voices so far.

Quote
You don't need to be confined to binary notions of sex and gender. The elf god Corellon Larethian is often seen as androgynous or hermaphroditic, for example, and some elves in the multiverse are made in in Corellon's image. You could also play a female character who presents herself as a man, a man who feels trapped in a female body, or a bearded female dwarf who hates being mistaken for a male. Likewise, your character's sexual orientation is for you to decide.

So basically from what I hear, it's well-intention-ed if a little awkward in parts.  The term "hermaphroditic" is outdated, for example.  "Intersex" is now considered the respectful, and clinical term for people with both sex organs.  But overall many trans* people are happy about this.

Clunky. Very, very clunky. It's 'inclusion for the sake of inclusion', which is a step forward I guess but an inherently depressing reason to do anything.

And telling people they could play androgynous elves is like saying you can play a dwarf with a beard. :rolleyes

As for the 'hermaphroditic' part: given that this is a god, I am taking that line at full face value. <.<

But due to the exclusive 'or' on page 7, this inclusion of this god means you can't play beardless dwarves without a god of unbearded dwarves!

*Gets hit in the head with books from that other thread*  Kidding kidding.  Actually, that thing was just eye-rolling.  It's harmless, but I do wonder about the mindset of those who are unable to separate themselves from their fictional characters.  Is it really common?  I admit I've never run into it but it just might be the people I associate myself with.  We've all ended up playing oddball characters some who are polar opposites of who we actually are.
Mudada.

Offline Raineh Daze

  • Epic Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 10577
  • hi
    • View Profile
Re: D&D Next Basic Ruleset is out!
« Reply #14 on: July 04, 2014, 07:21:03 AM »
So over on rpg.net and intangibility several trans* gamers noticed a nod towards inclusion in the "sex" entry.  The reaction has ranged from positive to mixed, although I haven't seen any really negative voices so far.

Quote
You don't need to be confined to binary notions of sex and gender. The elf god Corellon Larethian is often seen as androgynous or hermaphroditic, for example, and some elves in the multiverse are made in in Corellon's image. You could also play a female character who presents herself as a man, a man who feels trapped in a female body, or a bearded female dwarf who hates being mistaken for a male. Likewise, your character's sexual orientation is for you to decide.

So basically from what I hear, it's well-intention-ed if a little awkward in parts.  The term "hermaphroditic" is outdated, for example.  "Intersex" is now considered the respectful, and clinical term for people with both sex organs.  But overall many trans* people are happy about this.

Clunky. Very, very clunky. It's 'inclusion for the sake of inclusion', which is a step forward I guess but an inherently depressing reason to do anything.

And telling people they could play androgynous elves is like saying you can play a dwarf with a beard. :rolleyes

As for the 'hermaphroditic' part: given that this is a god, I am taking that line at full face value. <.<

But due to the exclusive 'or' on page 7, this inclusion of this god means you can't play beardless dwarves without a god of unbearded dwarves!

*Gets hit in the head with books from that other thread*  Kidding kidding.  Actually, that thing was just eye-rolling.  It's harmless, but I do wonder about the mindset of those who are unable to separate themselves from their fictional characters.  Is it really common?  I admit I've never run into it but it just might be the people I associate myself with.  We've all ended up playing oddball characters some who are polar opposites of who we actually are.

That's a mindset that has nothing to do with the sex thing, though.

Honestly, it irritates me more than anything else: "Oh, you can do this thing you were probably going to do anyway, but by putting this passage in we'll end up making people who otherwise wouldn't play it offensively". Maybe I'm being overly cynical.

Offline X-Codes

  • DnD Handbook Writer
  • ****
  • Posts: 2001
  • White, Fuzzy, Sniper Rifle.
    • View Profile
Re: D&D Next Basic Ruleset is out!
« Reply #15 on: July 04, 2014, 08:14:57 PM »
I think the kicker for me is that it's explicitly the elves that have these gender confusion issues, as if there's some kind of logic there.

EDIT: Well, there probably is.  If any D&D race gets targeted with homophobia, it's the elves.  If you were a very, very cynical person, you could kinda see this as acknowledgement of that.
« Last Edit: July 04, 2014, 08:16:58 PM by X-Codes »

Offline Raineh Daze

  • Epic Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 10577
  • hi
    • View Profile
Re: D&D Next Basic Ruleset is out!
« Reply #16 on: July 04, 2014, 08:23:01 PM »
I think the kicker for me is that it's explicitly the elves that have these gender confusion issues, as if there's some kind of logic there.

EDIT: Well, there probably is.  If any D&D race gets targeted with homophobia, it's the elves.  If you were a very, very cynical person, you could kinda see this as acknowledgement of that.

Eh, apparently the elves get stuck with the physical stuff, rather than mental confusion.

Love that they included that sexual orientation is up to the player. No, really? Like there's going to be rules for that (in anything that they expect to achieve any sort of following)

Offline Libertad

  • Epic Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 3618
    • View Profile
    • My Fantasy and Gaming Blog
Re: D&D Next Basic Ruleset is out!
« Reply #17 on: July 04, 2014, 10:08:05 PM »
I think the intention was to making the increasingly visible number of trans* gamers to feel welcome as fans.  And maybe, perhaps, to tell gamers that it's okay to play a character of the opposite gender.

That, or they're following in the footsteps of White Wolf and Paizo and other companies who are being inclusive in their writing.  Or maybe all of this.

Offline JohnnyMayHymn

  • Hero Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 762
  • Former Lord of the Kitchen Sink
    • View Profile
Re: D&D Next Basic Ruleset is out!
« Reply #18 on: July 05, 2014, 01:15:14 AM »
It's good to see that the Tiers didn't completely disappear.
The Emperor
Can you find the Wumpus?

Offline bhu

  • Uncle Kittie
  • DnD Handbook Writer
  • ****
  • Posts: 16054
  • Fnord bitches
    • View Profile
Re: D&D Next Basic Ruleset is out!
« Reply #19 on: July 05, 2014, 01:41:50 AM »
I think the kicker for me is that it's explicitly the elves that have these gender confusion issues, as if there's some kind of logic there.

EDIT: Well, there probably is.  If any D&D race gets targeted with homophobia, it's the elves.  If you were a very, very cynical person, you could kinda see this as acknowledgement of that.

People have made gay elf jokes for decades.  Or maybe its because I live in the shithole midwest...