D&D (Fifth Edition): Basic Rules Free PDF (link in OP)

Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you:

No adverts like this in the forums anymore.
Times and dates in your local timezone.
Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance.
Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely.
Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net.

If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

**Manchu**

Yes, that's well said.

Reds8n posted an article some time ago contrasting video games with RPGs, where the main distinction was in video games the reward is progressing through the game while with RPGs the reward is the play itself. 3E and 4E blur that distinction, IMO.

**Buzzsaw**

I'm rather conflicted about 5e. Fourth was the edition for me; I have played and collected since 2nd, but 4th was deeply satisfying for me in a way that was dramatically different from previous editions. To the extent that is has, as the saying goes, ruined me for older editions I fear. It's a bit like eating really good Sushi; you look back at the stuff you were eating in college and remember liking it... but not being able to understand quite why.

So, as someone that felt that where 4th diverged from the other editions, it was to the credit of 4th, much of the lead-up to 5th, with the emphasis on capturing the "feel" and character of previous editions, has left me rather cold. I will say that the art is quite good though!

**Da Boss**

I dunno, I'm way more excited about 5th edition than I am about 7th ed 40K. Probably because D'n'D is most of my gaming these days. I just want it to be easy to run and fluid in play and I'll be happy as Larry. I don't like the bloat that happens past the mid levels in 4th or 3.5/Pathfinder.

We're playing a very loose, open ended Pathfinder game in an Open Table framework, with a slow progression. Anyone who gets killed starts off again at level 1, and XP is awarded per session, so we're seeing level disparities within parties. It's actually been a massive breath of fresh air from our previous GM plot driven experiences, where everything is pretty much up to the players, and the roster is constantly changing resulting in new team dynamics. I've been pretty unforgiving in killing them if the dice come up that way, and they seem to really enjoy the drama of it. But it's all been low level so far- 15 sessions, and the highest level characters just hit level 4. I have to say it's really made me appreciate the fun of simple, open, choice driven gaming with a fast and fluid system. I hope 5th can capture this feeling.

**adamsouza**

Manchu wrote:
back of the starter set

Spoiler:

The lack of map and tokens listed on the box makes me think they are trying to avoid the accusation of game being dumbed down that accompanied 4E.

I know there is a bit of art of a dungeon interior on the back of the box, but I can't see them including a map without listing it as a selling point on the box contents.

**Balance**

adamsouza wrote:
The lack of map and tokens listed on the box makes me think they are trying to avoid the accusation of game being dumbed down that accompanied 4E.

There's been a lot of evidence that the core rules are mapless (or at least don't get weird without a map) because that's how old editions did it. The good/bad here is it is supposed to make 'quick encounters' easier (4e tended to be underwhelming for smaller encounters, although it worked great for big, massive fights.) and encourage 'creative' combat stuff. The bad side is it does mean that some DMs will not alls anything besides the base combat maneuvers that are included, and there's no positioning and such to make combat interesting.

**Balance**

It looks like the super-core rules are going to be available free:

http://wizards.com/dnd/Article.aspx?x=dnd/4ll/20140527

it's interesting, looking back:

For 3.0, there was a perception that WotC's "plan" was to control the core. For example, to be compliant and use the d20 logo you had to say "Refer to the PHB for generating stats" and a few other things. There was a definite feel of "You want to play d20? But the basic book from us, then your setting stuff from whomever. We don't care."

It worked, to an extent, in that tons of d20-based games were released. Some good, some bad. WotC got their $ from the PHB instead of pursuing licensing costs. This is also the edition where some classic D&D settings were licensed out: Ravenloft and Dragonlance were done by 3rd parties.

4th was very strongly opposed to 3rd party stuff. I thought there was supposed to be a route for companies to do 3rd party material, but I believe it was difficult to qualify for and little if any materialized. The general community feeling of reliance on the character builder probably didn't help, either.

5th looks interesting. They're definitely taking a new stance. I wonder if they're going to do any new settings or mostly focus on older ones, and what (if any) the 4rd party policy will be. There's definitely room the type of books that came out for 3rd that were big compilations of Prestige Classes, but instead new backgrounds and such for 5e.

**Manchu**

The OGL was the kudzu of RPGs. In terms of rule sets, d20 dominated so thoroughly as to dominate the market beyond the D&D brand. In a word, it established an era. I don't know how much WotC directly benefited (given the inward turn during 4E and subsequent/simultaneous development of PF) but smaller gaming companies certainly reaped the windfall both by embracing and reacting against this era.

There were third-party 4E materials, by the way. Yes, there were few compared to the seemingly endless stream of 3E-, then 3.5-, and now PF-compatible materials but far more than pretty much any other system. That there were any at all is surprising not only in terms of the restricted licensing arrangement but also because the logic of 4E was itself very "introverted."

Automatically Appended Next Post:
New Take On Basic D&D

As you might have noticed, we made an exciting announcement last week about our upcoming storyline called Tyranny of Dragons, and after over two years of work, countless hours of testing, and hundreds of thousands of playtest packets downloaded, we’ve finally announced release dates for the books and the Starter Set that make up the core of the new edition of Dungeons & Dragons.

It’s been a long road to this point. It seems like just yesterday that we were in crunch mode for that first playtest packet. The team faced a daunting final push of work that day. I’m pretty sure that my rendition of several Public Enemy tracks provided the morale-boosting energy to finish that first release. Either that or everyone just wanted to get their work done to shut me up.

It’s been an interesting journey these past two years. The overwhelming response to the playtest showed us that demand for RPGs is still out there, despite a host of other gaming options. Your feedback and the steadily increasing approval in our surveys showed that we were on the right track. A simpler, leaner, extensible game was right not just for new players, but also for people who had put decades into playing D&D.

There’s a lot to talk about with the new game, but I’d like to take this week to focus on a piece of the puzzle we haven’t talked about yet: Basic Dungeons & Dragons.

Basic D&D is a PDF that covers the core of the game. It’s the equivalent of the old D&D Rules Cyclopedia, though it doesn’t have quite the same scope (for example, it won’t go into detail on a setting). It runs from levels 1 to 20 and covers the cleric, fighter, rogue, and wizard, presenting what we view as the essential subclass for each. It also provides the dwarf, elf, halfling, and human as race options.

But the best part? Basic D&D is a free PDF. Anyone can download it from our website. We want to put D&D in as many hands as possible, and a free, digital file is the best way to do that.

If Basic D&D is the equivalent of the classic Rules Cyclopedia, then the three core rulebooks are analogous to Advanced Dungeons & Dragons. Want more character options? Pick up a Player’s Handbook. Looking for more critters for your campaign? The Monster Manual has you covered. Want to sculpt a unique campaign? Pick up the Dungeon Master’s Guide. Still, Basic D&D is the true heart of the game and could easily provide a lifetime of gaming.

At the launch of the D&D Starter Set, Basic D&D will include the material needed to create characters and advance to 20th level. In August, with the release of the Player’s Handbook, Basic D&D will expand to include the essential monsters, magic items, and DM rules needed to run the game, along with the rules for wilderness, dungeon, and urban adventuring. (The Starter Set already covers the aspects of these rules that you need to run the included campaign.)

As we introduce new storylines like Tyranny of Dragons, we’ll also make available free PDFs that provide all the rules and stats missing from Basic D&D needed to run the adventures tied into the story. The adventures released as part of Tyranny of Dragons are playable without requiring any of the core rulebooks or the Starter Set. With just the Basic Dungeons & Dragons rules, you can play D&D for years.

Basic D&D makes it easier than ever for new players and DMs to jump into tabletop RPG play. We’re involved in the greatest gaming hobby ever invented. It’s time to bring that hobby to everyone who wants to take part.

From here.

**Balance**

Manchu: In reference to some of the recent discussions about editions, I noticed something interesting while reading some older 2nd edition material over the weekend:

I don't know if this is a constant, but I noticed a lot of 2nd material describing class abilities and such is written in a tone that implies that reaching a high level is not common or easy. For example, one passage was something like "The Ranger that reaches level X will gain several abilities..."

I feel like 3rd and 4th both changed the tone to be more positive, more "When your Ranger reaches level X..."

It's a weird, subtle difference. The rules allow high levels for all editions, but later editions seem to expect you'll use them more.

(In all fairness, I should also say that 2nd can get cutthroat in the level 10+ zone. Besides save-or-die stuff being common, there's a lot of stuff that's '1-time-only' like Followers that, if killed or driven off, are not replenished. Rangers, for example (Guess which 'Complete...' book I was browsing!) get something like 2d6 Followers in total, over the life of the character, and cannot replenish them if they're killed, out-leveled, etc. They really seem more like dependents than assets. )

**Da Boss**

That's an encouraging sign, the free rules. Making them a PDF rather than an index of rules a la SRD is a poor choice, but free rulez is free rulez. It'll be the reason my group switches over, I reckon, if they do. Well, that and me pushing a new campaign using the system on them.

That said, we're good with PF for at least another year, even if I'd be happy to run it in 5th.

**Manchu**

Balance wrote:
It's a weird, subtle difference. The rules allow high levels for all editions, but later editions seem to expect you'll use them more.

Yes, very good catch, this is what I was referencing earlier ITT re: 3E and 4E:

Manchu wrote:
Survival in those editions is less of a question and more of a right.

Balance wrote:
They really seem more like dependents than assets.

I honestly think that was the original idea. That is, I don't know if this was supposed to be the case by 2E Revised but I think there is an older idea at work here of a narrative transition from wild adventurer to responsible lord, see e.g. Beowulf or Conan.

Da Boss wrote:
Making them a PDF rather than an index of rules a la SRD is a poor choice

Disagree. SRD-style is great for (a) a super complicated game like d20, (b) players already experienced with the rules, and (c) an accessory-heavy table/digital sessions. I think the idea for this product is: casual gamers/beginners gathering around a table armed only with pencils, papers, and dice.

**Da Boss**

I'll accept that choice, but hope they include an easily referenced web version for ease of use later, too.

**Manchu**

Perhaps you are underestimating the use of the word "basic" here? I cannot imagine a SRD-style format being helpful for, or even applicable to the existing Basic (Holmes, Moldvay, or Mentzer) rule sets and guess the same is true for 5E Basic. That leaves the "advanced" options, which I cannot imagine being available as a free digital index -- at least not for a (probably long) while.

I hasten to add, that kind of index would probably be useful for advanced options -- especially as the inevitable bloat sets in -- just that I reckon it will be part of a paid service a la Insider.

**Balance**

I don't think 'Basic' is really meant to tie into 'Basic D&D' more than the desire nostalgia, and in practice I'm guessing the free stuff will be a good, solid 'core' that isn't an SRD, but is more than a 'quick start.' That sounds pretty good, though.

**Manchu**

Not saying it is the same product or even inspired by those older products. Only that it is literally basic. Therefore, there is no need for extensive cross-referencing, which makes the SRD's format so suitable to the complexities of d20.

Furthermore, if you consider the goal encouraging casual/beginner play (inspired by, say, an episode of Community or Wil Wheaton's show on YT), being able to email a free, self-contained PDF is extremely powerful.

I think this is what 5E is all about, in stark contrast to WotC's previous editions of the game. It is designed to be extremely basic and then scale up in complexity to taste.

**Ensis Ferrae**

Manchu wrote:

I think this is what 5E is all about, in stark contrast to WotC's previous editions of the game. It is designed to be extremely basic and then scale up in complexity to taste.

I honestly felt that 4E was "extremely basic" in that, as a player in the campaigns that I participated in, I only needed my character sheet, dice and pencil (PHB 1, 2, or 3 depending on class, if there were any questions or what not).. Certainly if I built characters manually, then I'd "need" more of the books right off the bat, but in the internet age, who doesn't have internet access?

I am somewhat excited for 5e, but I do wonder how easily campaign guides and the adventure modules from previous editions will translate into the new edition?

**HiveFleetPlastic**

The pdf dealy sounds very interesting. I look forwards to reading it!

I didn't get on well with 4th - it felt a lot like playing a computer RPG by hand, to me - and the incredibly vague statements I've read about 5th sound promising, like potential lack of a battle map. If the gist of the rules is free then that sounds like a really good way to try it out and see if it's to taste.

**Manchu**

Ensis Ferrae wrote:
I honestly felt that 4E was "extremely basic"

Well, first, you're using the word "basic" to describe what you needed to bring to the table as a player rather than a DM. That's not a great barometer for anything. Whether the player needs more than a pencil and character sheet, the 4E DM is toting a crate of mats, maps, minis, markers, books, etc. Second, the word "basic" in this context has to do with the rule set itself and 4E is not basic by that standard at least compared to any other edition of D&D.

HiveFleetPlastic wrote:
I didn't get on well with 4th - it felt a lot like playing a computer RPG by hand, to me

I think I understand what you mean. I enjoyed it because I got into the deep tactical side of things and even given its complexity it was an absolute breeze to run those long, long combats compared with the same in 3.5E.

**HiveFleetPlastic**

Manchu wrote:
HiveFleetPlastic wrote:
I didn't get on well with 4th - it felt a lot like playing a computer RPG by hand, to me
I think I understand what you mean. I enjoyed it because I got into the deep tactical side of things and even given its complexity it was an absolute breeze to run those long, long combats compared with the same in 3.5E.

I definitely don't want to harsh 4e's vibe or anything - lots of people enjoyed it. I think there were three things that contributed to how I felt about it:

1. bookkeeping. My experience was there were a lot of effects that lasted a round and were a hassle to track. This was exacerbated, I believe, by my playing a Rune Priest in one adventure. Rune Priest seems to be the go-to class for annoying-to-track one-round effects! Maybe a bad idea.

A computer would have had no trouble managing those effects at all.
2. at will/encounter/daily. Very much a game artifice that didn't make much sense in-setting, but would have been at home in a computer game.
3. dividing things into pretty sharply delineated combat encounters, each of which tended to look eerily like something you might design for a computer RPG.

Because of that I spent a lot of the play experience thinking to myself, "you know, a computer would be great at running this." Maybe a lot of that was even by design, with their plans for the D&D Insider virtual tabletop stuff. It's too bad that didn't take off because that could've been pretty cool!

My first pen and paper RPG was AD&D and I think it still informs my idea of what an RPG should look like. Even if I turn out to not like 5th I'll be really happy to see what direction they're taking it in for curiosity's sake.

**Manchu**

I think you will be plenty happy with 5E if you like AD&D.

As to 4E book keeping -- there was a company that made these stackable plastic rings that fit onto the bottom of your PC mini. Each was a different color to represent some effect -- being marked, bloodied, etc, etc. In some combats, we'd have a mini towering over others just thanks to the markers. A computer would have been much better at that, yes.

As for daily/encounter stuff, I think of RPG stories like movies rather than alternative universe proper to themselves. So the idea that you have scene-specific resources makes sense to me. FFG's new SW games tend to think like this as well, I have found.

**pretre**

Not to be too argumentative, but At Will/Encounter/Daily has been around since 1st edition in one form or another and every combat in D&D has been sharply delineated since the first time someone yelled 'Roll Initiative!'.

Not to mention that the reason computer RPGs have similarities to D&D is often because they cribbed those features from D&D in the first place.

**Manchu**

Can you give some examples of at-will, encounter, and daily powers in AD&D?

I will be disappointed if you are conflating making a melee or ranged attack or Vancian casting with the 4E powers system.

**pretre**

Manchu wrote:
Can you give some examples of at-will, encounter, and daily powers in AD&D?

I will be disappointed if you are conflating making a melee or ranged attack or Vancian casting with the 4E powers system.

2nd Edition -
Paladin,
- Detect Evil (60 ft) at Will
- Lay on Hands 1/day
- Cure Disease 1/week per 5 levels
- Turn Undead

Druid
- ID plants, animal, pure water at will
- Pass plants at will
- Shapechange 3/day

(These type of 1/day, 1/encounter, etc powers did not start in 2nd, it was just the first pdf I found.)
etc so on.

**Manchu**

Son I am disappoint. I guess I should have thrown in X/day stuff along with Vancian casting, although I will admit those are the closest you will find in pre-WotC editions. Unfortunately closest is still a galaxy away in this case. First off, 4E powers are primarily meant for combat. Second, 4E powers are designed around structured time to create resource management play. Third, 4E powers are for everyone, all the time because powers are the very center of the rule set. While it is true that 4E did not come out of nowhere, looking for its roots in 2E or before is a fools errand.

**pretre**

I didn't say it was exactly the same, but the concept of limited resource management for powers is very old. A lot of people tend to make it sound like 4th invented it and obviously they didn't. 4th took the idea of limited resources in 1st/2nd/3rd and turned it into the core play mechanic.

**Manchu**

Another way of putting it is, whatever DNA 4E shares with TSR's games was passed on through 3E (seemingly unlike 5E). But the developments in 3E that led to 4E, such as Book of Nine Swords, are new to 3E. It's part of the larger pattern of relying on paraphernalia.

minis optional <--- 2E ---- 3E -- Bo9S --- 4E ---> minis required

Generally speaking, 4E powers are not just "things my PC can do" but rather "things my miniature can do to affect other miniatures on the grid."

Automatically Appended Next Post:

pretre wrote:
4th took the idea of limited resources in 1st/2nd/3rd and turned it into the core play mechanic.

I can agree with that, but also cannot resist

qualifying it a bit more -- WotC took a fairly incidental mechanic in TSR's editions, which had grown in importance throughout 3E, and made it the core play mechanic of 4E by totally transforming it.

**pretre**

Manchu wrote:
pretre wrote:
4th took the idea of limited resources in 1st/2nd/3rd and turned it into the core play mechanic.
I can agree with that, but also cannot resist qualifying it a bit more -- WotC took a fairly incidental mechanic in TSR's editions, which had grown in importance throughout 3E, and made it the core play mechanic of 4E.

Your qualification is exactly right.
...Which is a lot different than 'Very much a game artifice that didn't make much sense in-setting, but would have been at home in a computer game. '
...Which was my whole dispute in the first place.

**Chongara**

pretre wrote:
Manchu wrote:
pretre wrote:
4th took the idea of limited resources in 1st/2nd/3rd and turned it into the core play mechanic.
I can agree with that, but also cannot resist qualifying it a bit more -- WotC took a fairly incidental mechanic in TSR's editions, which had grown in importance throughout 3E, and made it the core play mechanic of 4E.

Your qualification is exactly right.
...Which is a lot different than 'Very much a game artifice that didn't make much sense in-setting, but would have been at home in a computer game. '
...Which was my whole dispute in the first place.

What makes sense "in-setting"? Is a rules set meant to be a simulation of what happens in universe, dictating actions in much the same way the laws of physics dictate what happens in the real world? Is a rules set meant to be framework with which to use somewhat fuzzy or abstracted tools to construct a narrative outline within the game on to which the in-setting meaning is projected by the GM & Players?

Not that these are the only two options mind you, I'm just not so sure what you're pulling out here is a valid criticism beyond a matter of personal taste in how you like to arrive at your "In setting" events.

To use an example: If we had "Power Rangers: The RPG", Would it be OK to simply have a caveat that says that the Megazord can only be summoned when facing a giant monster and that you can only use the sword to end a fight, with no further explanation beyond the restricting game mechanic? Would it be better to have a more involved process outlining the use and limitations of megazords and swords, with no mechanic strictly tying them to the size of monsters and lengths of fights in hopes of supporting the standard trope?

**pretre**

Chongara wrote:
What makes sense "in-setting"?

The power/technique/spell/etc is difficult to achieve or very specific in its usage. It requires rest to recharge, or a certain set of circumstances or certain components, or whatever. Just as Vancian casting did before it. Just as Lay on Hands 1/day did, or Turning did, or whatever.

Is a rules set meant to be a simulation of what happens in universe, dictating actions in much the same way the laws of physics dictate what happens in the real world? Is the rules set meant to be framework with which to more abstract concepts to construct a narrative outline on to which the in-setting meaning is projected by the GM & Players? Not that these are the only two options mind you, I'm just not so sure what you're pulling out here is a valid criticism beyond a matter of personal taste in how you like to arrive at your "In setting" events.

I'm not sure where you're going with this question or what this has to do with these things having existed for quite some time and fitting into the setting.

To use an example, if we had "Power Rangers: The RPG", Would it be OK to simply have a caveat that says that the Megazord can only be summoned when facing a giant monster and that you can only use the sword to end a fight, with no further explanation beyond the restricting game mechanic? Would it be better to have a more involved process outlining the use and limitations of megazords and swords, with no mechanic strictly tying them to the size of monsters and lengths of fights in hopes of supporting the standard trope?

What now?

**HiveFleetPlastic**

Manchu has what I'm talking about. There's a difference between "I can use this magical ability once per day in general, because magic" and "I can use Cleave once per encounter because the game designers thought that would produce an interesting resource management scenario." In one case, the setting is informing the gameplay, while in the other case the gameplay is informing the setting. I don't think either of these is superior. I do think the latter is far more common in computer RPGs, where it's generally impossible to stay true to your setting in the gameplay because it's too complicated to do so.

When I said the encounters look like computer RPG designs, I mean that they tend to have very sharply defined scope, starting and ending parameters as well as enemy setups taken down to a science to provide an encounter of the appropriate challenge level and that is tactically interesting for the players. This is, again, gameplay informing the setting. The encounter is not the way it is because it makes sense from a world design point of view (though obviously as encounter author and/or DM you try to make that fit as well as you can) but because it should provide fun gameplay. That is absolutely what you do in any computer RPG, largely because doing it the other way around is incredibly difficult to impossible.

Again, just for emphasis, I don't think that's a bad thing at all and I believe 4e is a beautiful snowflake worthy of genesis.

I am also interested to hear that 5th might be more similar to AD&D in some regards.

**Manchu**

pretre wrote:

Your qualification is exactly right.
...Which is a lot different than 'Very much a game artifice that didn't make much sense in-setting, but would have been at home in a computer game. '
...Which was my whole dispute in the first place.

You don't think so?

I think being able to cure a disease once per weak could make sense in-universe. You have to recharge your divine batteries through good works, prayer, fasting, whatever lawful good stuff paladins are presumed to be doing between curing diseases.

Now changing that to a 4E-style power implicitly smashes through the fourth wall because 4E powers are themselves pure artifice. A "week" is a thing that exists in the world of the setting. But an "encounter" is to the game world as a scene is to a movie. None of this is meant to put down 4E. As I mentioned, I like this way of thinking about game time as abstracted but structured. The characters in movies may not know they are in a scene but the audience always does. Similarly, mechanics in a RPG are for players rather than characters. Radically breaking with past editions, 4E finally and flatly acknowledges this.

That isn't what (might) make (in some people's opinion) 4E better suited to playing on the computer, however. But that take on mechanics seems to arise from the idea of making powers the central mechanic, which itself is cribbed from video games. Yes, video games learned a bunch of stuff from D&D. But D&D, especially in 3E and 4E, learned a lot back from what video games did with D&D. For example, curing a disease once per week eventually gets simulated in video games a cool down power, which in turn gets simulated in 4E through abstracted, structured time.

In any case, I think HFP's point about 4E being suitable as a video game mechanic had more to do with keeping track of all the moving parts than it did with the nature of 4E powers. Interesting diversion nonetheless!

Chongara wrote:
Is a rules set meant to be a simulation of what happens in universe

I would say that rules [also] form setting but with the reminder that a setting is not the same thing as an universe. A setting is where a story happens rather than an autonomous world. All the "Encyclopedia of Star Wars" type books published for seemingly every franchise over the years have tended to confuse this point for a lot of people -- I apologize if I am belaboring it relative to you guys.

Chongara wrote:
To use an example: If we had "Power Rangers: The RPG" Would it be OK to simply have a caveat that says that the Megazord can only be summoned when facing a giant monster and that you can only use the sword to end a fight, with no further explanation beyond the restricting game mechanic?

Having thought about this extensively for my homemade Last Airbender RPG and prospective Voltron RPG, I think the answer is YES YES YES! The reason is because the point of such games is to simulate the respective shows.