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.
2014/07/08 19:58:45
Subject: D&D (Fifth Edition): Basic Rules Free PDF (link in OP)
Yep, and any of those characters can give it a shot even if there is no set rule for it.
Looking for great deals on miniatures or have a large pile you are looking to sell off? Checkout Mindtaker Miniatures.
Live in the Pacific NW? Check out http://ordofanaticus.com
2014/07/08 20:04:14
Subject: D&D (Fifth Edition): Basic Rules Free PDF (link in OP)
pretre wrote: Yep, and any of those characters can give it a shot even if there is no set rule for it.
Agreed, if the party felt so inclined, they could have the Wizard try and bash the door open (in which the DM would probably have them do a STR check.... which could be interesting )
2014/07/08 20:05:47
Subject: D&D (Fifth Edition): Basic Rules Free PDF (link in OP)
nomotog wrote: Wow this discussion is hard to follow. Like I can't tell what half the people are talking about if they are talking about anything.
The idea of a permissive rule set is kind of a neat one. D&D next did have a ideal that they wanted to try. The idea was to have players do more things then was was on their character sheet. It was often the case in past D&D games that you would look to your character sheet to figure out what to do or what you could do. If it wasn't on your sheet, you didn't do it even though you actually could do it. D&D next tried to brake out of this with ieas like bound accuracy and using attribute rolls over other kinds of rolls.
I don't think this is true at all... Certainly, the players in the party would each look to their player sheets to determine what PC would be best suited to a task presented to them, but I don't think they were looking for what "could" be done.
For instance, the party comes across a locked door.... the Fighter in the party thinks that she's strong enough to break down the door (so that player checks her strength modifier), the Rogue chimes in that the door is locked, and they think they can pick the lock, thereby not alerting any potential enemies on the other side of the door (so he is looking for his Dex modifier), the Cleric believes that his deity will deem him a worthy candidate, and use divine intervention to open the door for the party (so checks their Cha, or Wis... I dunno). None of these characters have a specific ability that says "open door this way", rather the party sees a situation (a closed/locked door), and is deciding how to move beyond the situation.
The rouge would be looking at their pick-lock skill not their dex ability. The big part comes in in that in 3ed that pick-lock skill could be several points higher then a simple dex check.
2014/07/08 20:07:05
Subject: D&D (Fifth Edition): Basic Rules Free PDF (link in OP)
nomotog wrote: The rouge would be looking at their pick-lock skill not their dex ability. The big part comes in in that in 3ed that pick-lock skill could be several points higher then a simple dex check.
Depends on the edition. He was generalizing.
Looking for great deals on miniatures or have a large pile you are looking to sell off? Checkout Mindtaker Miniatures.
Live in the Pacific NW? Check out http://ordofanaticus.com
2014/07/08 20:11:30
Subject: D&D (Fifth Edition): Basic Rules Free PDF (link in OP)
In 3E, certain skills could only be used if you had ranks in it; for example, Open Lock. If you come to a locked door or chest, you need to refer to your character sheet about what can happen next. I don't have 4E books in front of me and I cannot recall if any PC could make a Thievery check (I know 4E, broadly speaking, had a training requirement to even attempt certain skills).
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2014/07/08 20:14:41
In HackMaster, you could attempt certain skills untrained, but if you critical fumbled, you were never allowed to train in it, and had to mark that on your character sheet.
IN PERMANENT INK!
DA:70S+G+M+B++I++Pw40k08+D++A++/fWD-R+T(M)DM+
2014/07/08 20:15:57
Subject: D&D (Fifth Edition): Basic Rules Free PDF (link in OP)
Manchu wrote: In 3E, certain skills could only be used if you had ranks in it; for example, Open Lock. If you come to a locked door or chest, you need to refer to your character sheet about what can happen next. I don't have 4E books in front of me and I cannot recall if any PC could make a Thievery check (I know 4E, broadly speaking, had a training requirement to even attempt certain skills).
"You have picked up thieving abilities and can perform
tasks that require nerves of steel and a steady hand:
disabling traps, opening locks, picking pockets, and
sleight of hand.
The DM might decide that some uses of this skill
are so specialized that you are required to be trained
in it to have a chance of succeeding."
So 4th was less restrictive than 3rd when it came to picking locks, picking pockets, etc.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
kronk wrote: In HackMaster, you could attempt certain skills untrained, but if you critical fumbled, you were never allowed to train in it, and had to mark that on your character sheet.
IN PERMANENT INK!
That's excellent.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2014/07/08 20:16:49
Looking for great deals on miniatures or have a large pile you are looking to sell off? Checkout Mindtaker Miniatures.
Live in the Pacific NW? Check out http://ordofanaticus.com
2014/07/08 20:17:43
Subject: D&D (Fifth Edition): Basic Rules Free PDF (link in OP)
pretre wrote: Yep, and any of those characters can give it a shot even if there is no set rule for it.
Agreed, if the party felt so inclined, they could have the Wizard try and bash the door open (in which the DM would probably have them do a STR check.... which could be interesting )
pretre wrote: Yep, and any of those characters can give it a shot even if there is no set rule for it.
Agreed, if the party felt so inclined, they could have the Wizard try and bash the door open (in which the DM would probably have them do a STR check.... which could be interesting )
You must be unfamiliar with the Muscle Wizard.
Or just a wizard with Bull's strength.
2014/07/08 20:34:47
Subject: D&D (Fifth Edition): Basic Rules Free PDF (link in OP)
pretre wrote: Yep, and any of those characters can give it a shot even if there is no set rule for it.
Agreed, if the party felt so inclined, they could have the Wizard try and bash the door open (in which the DM would probably have them do a STR check.... which could be interesting )
You must be unfamiliar with the Muscle Wizard.
Or the spell Knock and the ability to obscure casting.
"Watch while I force open the door that the puny Fighter was unable to open!"
Looking for great deals on miniatures or have a large pile you are looking to sell off? Checkout Mindtaker Miniatures.
Live in the Pacific NW? Check out http://ordofanaticus.com
2014/07/08 20:35:14
Subject: D&D (Fifth Edition): Basic Rules Free PDF (link in OP)
Manchu wrote: Nomotog, you are correct. In 3E, max ranks in a skill is Level + 4. A skill check is d20 + relevant ability modifier + skill ranks.
That is just with skills. You couldn't just go by that though because of feats and classes, magic items, ect ect could all bump your skill checks even more.
nomotog wrote: I know there is a webpage about what I am talking about. Let me see if I can find it.
And maybe that’s really the takeaway here. The rules are not the sum total of the game. The game is larger than that. Breaking the rules, circumventing the rules, or ignoring the rules does not take you out of the game. The game encompasses that type of play. It’s built upon it, in fact. So why shouldn’t the design of the game also be bigger than the rules? Why shouldn’t those kind of assumptions be taken into account? It puts the responsibility back in the hands of the players, rather than the DM or the designer. Success or failure lies within their own hands again.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2014/07/08 20:38:30
Looking for great deals on miniatures or have a large pile you are looking to sell off? Checkout Mindtaker Miniatures.
Live in the Pacific NW? Check out http://ordofanaticus.com
2014/07/08 20:57:21
Subject: D&D (Fifth Edition): Basic Rules Free PDF (link in OP)
Monte Cook wrote:In the early days, the game’s mechanics rarely provided solutions to the problems the characters faced. Players stretched beyond the bounds of the rules and looked for solutions not covered in the books. Player ingenuity was always the key to winning encounters. And very often, the DM didn’t actually have a set solution in mind ahead of time. He expected the PCs to come up with something on their own.
This isn’t true of more recent expressions of the game. There are few encounters that can’t be won simply by using the PCs’ straightforward powers and abilities.
What he doesn't cover is why there is a difference.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2014/07/08 20:58:20
Manchu wrote: Nomotog, you are correct. In 3E, max ranks in a skill is Level + 4. A skill check is d20 + relevant ability modifier + skill ranks.
That is just with skills. You couldn't just go by that though because of feats and classes, magic items, ect ect could all bump your skill checks even more.
I was only responding to this:
nomotog wrote: The rouge would be looking at their pick-lock skill not their dex ability. The big part comes in in that in 3ed that pick-lock skill could be several points higher then a simple dex check.
So I certainly did not mean that your skill roll could not be modified by any other means. (If nothing else, there was always the +/-2 "circumstances" rule of thumb.) The point is that 3E (and 4E) had a list of skills you could try (or could not even try) regardless of your ability scores, which contributed to the play style of looking to the character sheet to determine what you could do. The idea of "optimization," which applies to gameplay as much as character building, was also an issue here.
Same here, even despite us having the reverse experience in terms of when we played which edition. As I mentioned above, system matters:
Manchu wrote: The structure or shape or whatever you want to call it of a rule system has implications for the way it is played. Just to give a simple example, a system that simulates something complex with very few rules naturally relies more on rulings while a system with very many rules has preemptively defined the space where rulings would otherwise happen.
This message was edited 3 times. Last update was at 2014/07/08 21:12:06
Monte Cook wrote:In the early days, the game’s mechanics rarely provided solutions to the problems the characters faced. Players stretched beyond the bounds of the rules and looked for solutions not covered in the books. Player ingenuity was always the key to winning encounters. And very often, the DM didn’t actually have a set solution in mind ahead of time. He expected the PCs to come up with something on their own.
This isn’t true of more recent expressions of the game. There are few encounters that can’t be won simply by using the PCs’ straightforward powers and abilities.
What he doesn't cover is why there is a difference.
Ahhh Monte Cook, the guy who helped overpowered Wizards, That he prefers loose rules and Simulationist writing is rather odd considering his other views.
I'm just going to straight disagree considering he believes the classes that are forced to use "Imagination" as a crutch aren't worth even playing ingame, his Ivory Tower thought of game design is rather abhorrant.
This message was edited 4 times. Last update was at 2014/07/08 22:45:18
2014/07/08 22:45:08
Subject: D&D (Fifth Edition): Basic Rules Free PDF (link in OP)
Monte Cook was the lead designer on D&D Next/Fifth Edition until he resigned in April 2012, citing "differences of opinion with the company." He also emphasized "that [his] differences were not with my fellow designers, Rob Schwalb and Bruce Cordell." On the same day, Mike Mearls (the new lead designer) published a response, declaring his surprise at Cook's resignation, arguing that "[n]o one voice can rise above the others, unless it is the voice of D&D fans as a whole," and naming "the entire D&D Next team – Bruce Cordell, Rob Schwalb, Jeremy Crawford, Rodney Thompson, Miranda Horner, and Tom LaPille." Cook had only covered two of those names in his blog post.
Citing that I changed my opinion cannot prove that I am emotionally committed to that opinion.
When I first started reading the 5E PDF, it struck me as way too "interpretive" to be 4E-compatible. I posted that opinion ITT. Playing the game initially seemed to confirm my opinion. My friend's lament for the "beautiful tactical combat" of 4E also seemed to confirm my opinion. In trying to understand his reaction,* I started to analyze an instance of our gameplay from a perspective emphasizing the rules as written, beginning with the hypothesis that our DM had disregarded Opportunity Attacks. Reflecting further, with the rules in front of me, I found that our gameplay was very much in harmony with the tactical combat rules as written, which are all lifted from/inspired by elements of 3E and 4E.
I started to realize that my initial opinion could be based on me reading Basic into 5E. Indeed, I noticed that very few (almost no) 5E mechanics come from B/X, BECMI, or the Rules Cyclopedia. It was clear I needed others' perspectives. Specifically, I needed to see how people who would read different editions into 5E would interpret the gameplay. So I wrote a critical reflection of the game -- noting both the narrative surface and all the mechanics that at least could be running underneath. I left open the possibility that the DM was using the tactical combat rules or disregarding them because I genuinely did not know.
The DM got back to me, as I related here, that he was not consciously using the rules. In his own words, "I just made up what I wanted the goblin to do and he did it." I am fascinated that what he "just made up" was so closely in sync with the what the PDF outlines. Alpharius, who I asked as an AD&D afficianado, said it had an old school feel and intention. ZebioLizard2 and pretre seemed to think it sounded like run of the mill gameplay. One OSR booster on another site said it sounded "awfully crunchy" to him but was pleased to learn that nobody talked rules during play. Buzzsaw, skeptical before the release and convinced after that 5E was not 4E enough (and with whom I emphatically agreed at that time), told me the DM either misused the rules or cheated and then explained the proper way to play 5E.
Seeing this "rules, not rulings" approach applied point-by-point to 5E, a game I initially thought was more about "rulings, not rules," convinced me I had been wrong: here was the very proof that 5E was substantial enough to be played like 4E, namely as a miniatures skirmish game with (as Buzzsaw put it) a roleplaying "escape hatch" to cover whatever was not explicitly permitted/not permitted by the rules as written. While I am still not convinced that the game can be played simultaneously as an interpretive game and as a determinative game, I now see that it can at least be played either way. Whether that means it can replace any or all previous editions is completely personal.
I know admitting that you changed your mind after hearing out other people's opinions is considered running up the white flag on the internet. So be it. My initial opinion about 5E was wrong. I must admit, liking 5E more as a result -- especially after being so skeptical about it (from the opposite perspective of Buzzsaw and ZebioLizard2) for so long -- takes the sting out of it.
* This friend told me in June he would not buy any 5E products because he spent so much on 4E. After our first session, he enthusiastically exclaimed that he hated to do it but he wanted to get the 5E core books. The next day, he posted on facebook that 5E was "inferior" and the "beautiful tactical combat" of 4E was gone. So that's what I was trying to understand by reflecting on our gameplay and seeking others' opinions, specifically people who seem to prefer 4E.
nomotog wrote: When did people get the idea that 5ed would appeal to 4ed players? I mean I guess it can appeal to some in the same way people can like cats and the color red, but it was very clear from the very start of 5ed that 4ed was going to be treated as a mistake.
IIRC, the marketing line was 5E was supposed to bring in fans of every edition. When I originally heard this, I was severely skeptical. But seeing a bunch of people who prefer a bunch of different versions get around a table and have fun with it has really challenged that skepticism. Of course, I also see people here and elsewhere who want to stick to what they are already doing.
It's important to point out that you rather completely avoided answering the only question I asked: what is the bone thrown to the 4e player in the basic rules?
The reason I ask is not to play a game of gotcha, but first as a means of helping you to understand that the reasoning of your evaluation is compromised by your emotional involvement. You say you've changed your mind, but you really haven't: you started off at "5E is my favorite version of D&D" and "4E... is a wonderful skirmish game, but it's not what I call a good RPG", and now... "Can 5E be played as a permissive skirmish miniatures/board game with or without room for rulings like 3E and 4E? Buzzsaw has helped me see that, yes, this is also possible."
Buzzsaw wrote: Since my point is that moving through an occupied square is very different form simple movement, which is what the rules cover, my point is the DM decided he wanted to do something and simply did it.
First, yes the DM decided what he wanted to do and did it. Second, what he did was completely in line with the rules.
Third, there are no such things as "occupied squares" in our game. We aren't playing super chess so there are no squares at all. Our characters are not pawns on a board. They are people experiencing a story in a setting. That experience arises from known quantities (mechanics) smashing into unknown ones (randomness). That's pretty standard for table top games but what makes our game different is the setting is too complex to be perfectly described in every aspect at every level of granularity by a predetermined rule set. And even if it was that simple (some people might reasonably judge it so), we prefer that the setting entail a certain bias toward what we find interesting and fun. So we have rules, yes, but they are best understood as guidelines from which we can reason, via ruling, about specific instances of anything.
So what happened in our game is:
A cornered goblin in mortal fear took the only escape route available -- through the enemy. Its enemies tried to stop it but it was too slippery and quick.
What I find so cool about 5E is that during play we talked about what was going on like that. Provoking OAs, the Disengage action, Combat Tests as Reactions ... all those mechanics were active. The motor was running silently under the hood. If anybody at the table had wanted to, and I say this as something of a RPG "gearhead," they could have popped the hood and seen all the parts whirling right along. But nobody did because we were into the scene, the setting, the action.
At this point (two days ago?), your point is that is that what the DM "did was completely in line with the rules." This demonstrated "What I find so cool about 5E" and how " The motor was running silently under the hood".
Allow me make a momentary aside: as a technical matter, I did not show that 5e can handle 4e style combat, I simply showed that the people in Manchu's example were using what rules they had wrong. As to the rules and their tactical quality, I am quite dismissive. End of aside.
Notice, at first you are "fascinated that what he "just made up" was so closely in sync with the what the PDF outlines", and so your example shows how 5e can provide "Tactical play".
Ah, but then "Buzzsaw..., told me the DM either misused the rules or cheated and then explained the proper way to play 5E," and that "convinced me I had been wrong: here was the very proof that 5E was substantial enough to be played like 4E"!
I would point out that you've now accepted my previously disclaimed rules interpretation without so much as a "okay, you were right on that", but here I am magnanimous, for I understand that you are a man in love.
Love, you say? Indeed. As I point out above, you have constructed a framework in your mind where any possible outcome from your example supports your point, and what is that but a man besotted? It calls to mind nothing so much as a girl receiving flowers from her lover...
Girl: "Oh, you brought me lilies, your care and thoughtfulness in finding my favorite flower shows how much you love me!" Lover: "Uh.... actually, they were just the flowers near the register." Girl: "Oh... But don't you see? You knew what I would want without even thinking about it, we're in synch you love me so much!" Lover: "... yes."
So it is with Manchu's example. What the DM "did was completely in line with the rules", which shows how tactical 5e can be. What's that? Oh, the DM got it completely wrong and ignored several rules? That "is nicely proving that 5E can handle 4E-style combat"!
This is why I ask that you go outside of yourself: to find the bone thrown to the 4e fan in these basic rules. Put aside your own feelings: only a small portion of even the first round of rules are out, and already "5E is my favorite version of D&D". Look now with the eyes of one who is not so enamored. Show us...
Buzzsaw wrote: The signal to the people that hate vancian casting like poison and loathe having only simple martial classes. The gift to the people that though the warlord was aces and who prowled the CharOp boards looking for insights.
You say that "Buzzsaw has helped me see that," "5E [can] be played as a permissive skirmish miniatures/board game with or without room for rulings like 3E and 4E". For my part I do not see it; so put yourself in our frame of reference that we may feel your love.
Manchu wrote: Monte Cook was the lead designer on D&D Next/Fifth Edition until he resigned in April 2012, citing "differences of opinion with the company." He also emphasized "that [his] differences were not with my fellow designers, Rob Schwalb and Bruce Cordell." On the same day, Mike Mearls (the new lead designer) published a response, declaring his surprise at Cook's resignation, arguing that "[n]o one voice can rise above the others, unless it is the voice of D&D fans as a whole," and naming "the entire D&D Next team – Bruce Cordell, Rob Schwalb, Jeremy Crawford, Rodney Thompson, Miranda Horner, and Tom LaPille." Cook had only covered two of those names in his blog post.
It would make sense then, he repeatedly butted heads with Mike Mearls back in 3.5, but he had far more clout and so his thoughts pushed further into the game.
2014/07/08 23:22:52
Subject: Re:D&D (Fifth Edition): Basic Rules Free PDF (link in OP)
My opinion was that 5E could not be played like you play 4E. Now I think it can be. My opinion changed. I do not agree with you that my DM cheated or played the game wrong in the goblin example. This is because 5E can also be played in ways other than your style of playing 4E.
Buzzsaw wrote: for I understand that you are a man in love
Speaking of love and emotional commitments: 4E is "by far and away" your favorite edition and was "deeply satisfying" for you. It was "dramatically different" from previous editions so the idea that 5E would look back to them "left you cold." The nearing release date for 5E sapped your "cautious optimism." And on release day, "whatever slender hope" you maintained could "be well and truly buried." But it goes further than disappointment: you feel "actively antagonized" by "elements of 5E" because 5E "requires a certain amount of contempt" for "4E sensibilities."
Spoiler:
Buzzsaw wrote: 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.
Buzzsaw wrote: 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!
Buzzsaw wrote: I will confess that as 5 approaches retail, whatever cautious optimism I had for it to be an evolution that would take the elements of 4e that I found evolutionary and revolutionary and improve on them... well, let's just say I'm not so optimistic anymore.
Buzzsaw wrote: I'd also say that 4e is far and away my favorite edition.
Manchu wrote: These Basic rules will not get you to 4E, however.
Having digested the PDF, I completely agree.
Whatever slender hope I may have maintained can be well and truly buried now.
Buzzsaw wrote: To say that 4e players are left in the cold is to misstate it: 4e players are actively antagonized by elements of 5e.
Buzzsaw wrote: 5e isn't just unable to be reconciled with 4e sensibilities, but requires a certain amount of contempt for them.
I think you and 4E need to get a room, dude ... and far away from nasty ole 5E! As for a bone, what bone will do? Can there be any substitute? Any element of 4E incorporated into 5E will never be enough for someone so passionate about 4E. As you yourself said,
Buzzsaw wrote: The idea that 5e is made more like 4e with the inclusion of healing surges is like the idea that 40k would be more like WM/H by incorporating some form of the focus-allocation system. [...] 4e is no more a collection of certain specific elements (like healing surges, or at-will powers or whatnot) then WM/H is the focus/fury mechanic.
and
Buzzsaw wrote: When I played 2nd, or early 3rd, I was well accustomed to having to house rule rules of various sorts.. and it irritated me. Looking back I can't believe the efforts we made to make rules that we thought were terribly written work. More to the point, having played 4e, I know that I am unwilling to go back to that type of product.
TBH your, er, heartfelt fulminations really did help me out to understand that 5E could be stripped of roleplay and made into a miniatures skirmish game, so I appreciate that. And I am especially grateful for the "escape hatch" metaphor for how 4E handles rulings. But now we're at the point where you don't want to talk to me but rather to some fictional version of me that can only post the things you want to disagree with. As with pretre, I am not into shouting through the soundproof glass at you.
This message was edited 6 times. Last update was at 2014/07/08 23:38:51
Yay, Buzzsaw you're gonna get the silent treatment now too!
Looking for great deals on miniatures or have a large pile you are looking to sell off? Checkout Mindtaker Miniatures.
Live in the Pacific NW? Check out http://ordofanaticus.com
2014/07/09 02:48:55
Subject: D&D (Fifth Edition): Basic Rules Free PDF (link in OP)
)
(more)
(building)
(less)
