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.

**Alpharius**

Manchu wrote:
Nope.

Spoiler:

We should be glad that you didn't allow yourself to Google that for him!

All kidding aside, I also didn't know what a 'nothic' looked like, but Google Images surely does!

**nomotog**

Manchu wrote:
Nope.

Spoiler:

Ok I think that kind of underlines the problem. They use the little space they have for fluff text to tell you Nothics use to be mages and not to tell you they are creepycool eye creatures. That is just plain bad

**Ahtman**

It still could be on the opposite page; not ready to get worked up just yet.

**agnosto**

Ensis Ferrae wrote:
agnosto wrote:
Am I wrong for wanting am Ogre miniature based on that pic? It'd be awesome in my WHFB Ogre Kingdoms army.

[tinfoil hat time] they probably are in cahoots with GW, and want to boost miniatures sales by requiring at least 50% GW models for all creatures/characters represented on the table [/tinfoil hat time]

lol. Seriously, I always did like D&D MM art.

**Manchu**

Ahtman wrote:
It still could be on the opposite page; not ready to get worked up just yet.

Manchu wrote:
Looking over that page, my concern is the lack of art for the Nothic and Ochre Jelly. I hope the pics are on the facing page or something.

**Ahtman**

Manchu wrote:
Ahtman wrote:
It still could be on the opposite page; not ready to get worked up just yet.
Manchu wrote:
Looking over that page, my concern is the lack of art for the Nothic and Ochre Jelly. I hope the pics are on the facing page or something.

If you are trying to say you had stated something similar then I guess I have point out that I know you did, and I was agreeing.

**Manchu**

Does this mean that I should say that I knew that you knew and so posted to reaffirm our solidarity?

In other news, people are getting their Starter Sets early depending on from where they ordered it. So far, no reports of early Amazon deliveries ...

**Ahtman**

Manchu wrote:
Does this mean that I should say that I knew that you knew and so posted to reaffirm our solidarity?

Only pinky swearing will do!

Manchu wrote:
In other news, people are getting their Starter Sets early depending on from where they ordered it. So far, no reports of early Amazon deliveries ...

Of course not, we wouldn't want that.

**pretre**

Weren't they scheduled for late July? Either way, I can't wait!

**melkorthetonedeaf**

I expect a full review!!!

My local nerd group is going to try out the free pdf before deciding to buy the books, but judging from how willy-nilly we throw away money...

**pretre**

The starter was like $12 on Amazon when I ordered it. that's not throwing anything away.

**pretre**

http://wizards.com/DnD/Article.aspx?x=dnd%2Fbasicrules

As Mike Mearls explained in Legends & Lore: The Basic Rules for Dungeons & Dragons is a PDF (over 100 pages, in fact) that covers the core of the game. 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; in addition, the rules contain 120 spells, 5 backgrounds, and character sheets.

But the best part? The Basic Rules 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.

Here now is the Basic Rules for Dungeons & Dragons:

Using These Rules

The Basic Rules document is divided into three parts.

Part 1 is about creating a character, providing the rules and guidance you need to make the character you’ll play in the game. It includes information on the various races, classes, backgrounds, equipment, and other customization options that you can choose from. Many of the rules in part 1 rely on material in parts 2 and 3.

Part 2 details the rules of how to play the game, beyond the basics described in this introduction. That part covers the kinds of die rolls you make to determine success or failure at the tasks your character attempts, and describes the three broad categories of activity in the game: exploration, interaction, and combat.

Part 3 is all about magic. It covers the nature of magic in the worlds of D&D, the rules for spellcasting, and a selection of typical spells available to magic-using characters (and monsters) in the game.
(2.67 Mbs PDF) Basic Rules

http://media.wizards.com/downloads/dnd/DnDBasicRules.pdf

**Manchu**

Download the Basic Rules here:

http://wizards.com/DnD/Article.aspx?x=dnd/basicrules

**pretre**

Ha! Ninja'd.

Just started to read through.

Wow. Humans get +1 to all ability scores. Wacky.

Fighters are very 'swing once'.

edit: MOVED THIS SINCE IT WAS MISUNDERSTOOD. I think we're back to linear fighter, quadratic mage.

High level spell slots are only 1 for wizards though. Hmm (8th and 9th are only 1 each at 20).

Neat, backgrounds with skill proficiencies and starting equipment.

I guess I should have paid more attention to the playtest.

Ooh, HD are basically healing surges now.

**Manchu**

LFQW is not as simple as "the fighter can only swing once."

This is a game about imagination. Those who can only imagine "the fighter swinging once" may need to practice more.

**pretre**

Manchu wrote:
LFQW is not as simple as "the fighter can only swing once."

This is a game about imagination. Those who can only imagine "the fighter swinging once" may need to practice more.

Obviously. People who can imagine that that's all that I meant may need to imagine more.

I'm just jotting some notes while reading through. Maybe imagine a carriage return in my post and it'll make more sense.

**mikhaila**

Just got ours in. Tossing them up on the shelf and then taking a look at the rules.

**pretre**

mikhaila wrote:
Just got ours in. Tossing them up on the shelf and then taking a look at the rules.

I'm wishing I ordered it from somewhere other than Amazon right now. Mine's not due forever.

**Manchu**

You seem to have psychic powers mixed up with imagination.

In any case, LFQW is a metaphor rather than an accurate statement about mechanics. Even as a metaphor, it entails a very specific way of playing -- similar to the way people play board games or war games. WotC has always designed D&D on this premise in the past. Whether that's what they've done this time is not a matter of fighters being "very swing once."

Automatically Appended Next Post:

pretre wrote:
I'm wishing I ordered it from somewhere other than Amazon right now. Mine's not due forever.

Nah, it's no biggie. We have the good stuff in the pdf. The Starter Set is just fluff by comparison so waiting until 7/15 is okay.

**pretre**

Manchu wrote:
You seem to have psychic powers mixed up with imagination.

In any case, LFQW is a metaphor rather than an accurate statement about mechanics. Even as a metaphor, it entails a very specific way of playing -- similar to the way people play board games or war games. WotC has always designed D&D on this premise in the past. Whether that's what they've done this time is not a matter of fighters being "very swing once."

Right, those are separate thoughts. Hence the presence of a period between them. I put space between them now to make that more clear.

Specifically, I skimmed and read through fighter. Got the jist. Saw that Wizard was much the same as every edition except 4th. Then said 'LFQW'. Then modified that by saying that spell slots are fewer for the big stuff. Geeze.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

Manchu wrote:
pretre wrote:
I'm wishing I ordered it from somewhere other than Amazon right now. Mine's not due forever.
Nah, it's no biggie. We have the good stuff in the pdf. The Starter Set is just fluff by comparison so waiting until 7/15 is okay.

They're estimating 7/21 to 7/25. Argh.

Automatically Appended Next Post:
Ooh, I like the 'Cast at Higher Levels' mechanic.

**Manchu**

pretre wrote:
Geeze.

Uh, fine, how about this -- we'll save the debate about whether 5E is LFQW until later and not throw around such purely negative terms minutes after release.

pretre wrote:
They're estimating 7/21 to 7/25. Argh.

They sent me an email yesterday confirming shipping date of 7/15. They actually sent me two different emails, both confirming 7/15 shipping date -- one for a copy I preordered in May and another for a second copy I preordered in June.

**pretre**

Manchu wrote:
Uh, fine, how about this -- we'll save the debate about whether 5E is LFQW until later and not throw around such purely negative terms minutes after release.

Who says they are purely negative terms? They are factual terms. I love all editions of D&D and 3 of the 4 have been LFQW.

pretre wrote:
They're estimating 7/21 to 7/25. Argh.
They sent me an email yesterday confirming shipping date of 7/15. They actually sent me two different emails, both confirming 7/15 shipping date -- one for a copy I preordered in May and another for a second copy I preordered in June.

**Ahtman**

4 wasn't LFQW. It was one of the things that was nice about it. I had hoped they would find a nice balance between older editions and 4E for the Fighter but it doesn't sound like it, but that is going by the conversation. I haven't had a chance to read the pdf yet.

I also got a notice for the 15th as well.

Automatically Appended Next Post:
Some one sent me a message saying it was 3.5+ and that you could tell Monte Cook was involved because there are 30 pages of spells but only a handful of martial maneuvers.

**Manchu**

This is kind of why it is super important to break away from using phrases like LFQW. It's not always clear what they mean (even to the people using them), other than they are put downs, and even worse using such terms tends to assume that "D&D is X."

For example, I wonder if Ahtman's friend would think Monty Cook wrote everything that came before Third Edition ... given earlier editions entail hundreds of spells and basically no "martial maneuvers."

**pretre**

Probably. Monte Cook is the guy who started D&D, right?

**Manchu**

Yep, Monte Cook -- the creator of everyone's favorite board game, D&D.

**MWHistorian**

I'll be honest. If 5th smells too much like 4th, I won't be playing. I've been playing since I was five years old, but 4th turned me away after the first game with it.
I want lots and lots of options for character creation. I want it to feel like I'm there. If it can do that, I'll accept it.

**Manchu**

If you don't know much about 4E, you would probably have a hard time finding anything 4E-esque about 5E.

**pretre**

Manchu wrote:
If you don't know much about 4E, you would probably have a hard time finding anything 4E-esque about 5E.

Yep. So far, the stuff I've noticed from 4E has been subtle and good (Healing Surges becoming HD).

Either way, give it a read. Worst thing that can happen is you don't like it. The basic rules are free!

**Manchu**

I haven't been able to muster the discipline needed to approach this one page at a time and in order BUT (really and truly) so far, so good. It really does seem to split the difference between old school and modern gaming. Could be a triumph.