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.

**Ahtman**

At first I was like "Why is that barbarian wearing a shirt?" and then I realized it is so he can tear it off when he rages. Same for the pants.

**Sinful Hero**

I keep swinging back and forth on whether I want to really get in to this edition. Some things I like(feats and class archetypes)and others make me a little nervous(magic user>Everyone else who can't wield the powers of the cosmos; too many similarities to 3.5). It's not like I have to decide to buy it tomorrow or anything, but so far I'm a little torn from the information I have so far.

**Manchu**

Ahtman wrote:
At first I was like "Why is that barbarian wearing a shirt?" and then I realized it is so he can tear it off when he rages. Same for the pants.

Sounds like you might be thinking of that Bard, what was his name, Magic Mike?

Automatically Appended Next Post:

Sinful Hero wrote:
magic user>Everyone else who can't wield the powers of the cosmos

This has yet to be established.

**Sinful Hero**

It's strongly hinted IMO, or maybe I just got that impression from the starter. Spells like Knock(which can just replace certain class mechanics by themselves), don't bode well either.

**Manchu**

What 5E class mechanic is replaced by Knock?

**Sinful Hero**

Rogues stil pick locks don't they?

**Manchu**

Anyone can try to pick a lock. Proficiency with Thieves Tools helps but being a Rogue is not the only way to get it.

Also, Knock produced a loud noise audible from 300 feet away and emanating from the target object. Not exactly a replacement for a sneaky type.

**Sinful Hero**

Ah, I thought it was the same "open anything that's locked spell" from 3.5. I assume since it used the same name, it would not have become a completely different spell.

If it just makes a loud noise it's replacing noncasters ability to throw rocks! Why bother throwing anything when the wizard can do it louder, farther, and without any chance of error!

**Manchu**

Not at all LOL

It also unlocks things, with some provisos. But it's also a second level spell and it makes a loud noise. So there are some drawbacks there.

More importantly, the idea that only a Rogue can pick locks is silly and needs to be exorcised from gamers' minds ASAP.

**Sinful Hero**

Manchu wrote:
Not at all LOL

It also unlocks things, with some provisos. But it's also a second level spell and it makes a loud noise. So there are some drawbacks there.

More importantly, the idea that only a Rogue can pick locks is silly and needs to be exorcised from gamers' minds ASAP.

Well, they do generally have a high focus on dexterity which regardless of class abilities means they're usually better at it than a cleric or fighter.

**pretre**

The less we assume...

Right now, I was very impressed by the fighter in the starter. At second level, you've got your focus, second wind and extra attack action per encounter.

**Manchu**

The Fighter in our Thursday Night Game used his Second Wind to effectively kill (not outright kill, but prevent from escaping in order to be killed by the Fighter on the next turn) the Junior Big Bad in our campaign so far. So the class has impressed me as well. I really thought Junior would get away.

**pretre**

**Manchu**

Dunegon Delver seems good!

**Ahtman**

Manchu wrote:
Dunegon Delver seems good!

Indeed it do.

**Sinful Hero**

It seems good for a "fluffy" choice, but it'll be bottom tier for min/maxing I'm sure. The stat bonuses are gonna be where it's at.

**pretre**

Sinful Hero wrote:
It seems good for a "fluffy" choice, but it'll be bottom tier for min/maxing I'm sure. The stat bonuses are gonna be where it's at.

I'm thinking they may have put the kibosh on hard min/maxing if the feats are all just +1 to a stat. I guess it depends on how many you get and if there are any standouts. People avoided the fluffy choices in 3rd because they were so lame comparatively. But look at that one? You get a huge number of mechanical advantages with your fluff. Compared to Durable, it's a no brainer.

**Sinful Hero**

There will always be min/maxing. As the elemental adept feat says you can take it multiple times(just choose a different element), I imagine you'll get a fair few choices.

On another note all three of those choices are mostly defensive, except for the adept. Usually feats with bonuses to damage/potency are a higher priority- the feats that add to dex, str, wis, and int are going to be the real honey-pots.

**Manchu**

Wild magic ...

http://www.codenamemorningstar.com/blog/i-get-a-wild-magic-oh-what-a-wild-magic/

**Melissia**

Speaking of magic... I'm... too lazy to search through all thirty four pages-- has someone posted an image for Wizards like the Paladin and Barbarian ones you've posted so far?

**Charles Rampant**

No, since they are posting previews from the unseen classes so far. There was a Warlock preview, though.

**ZebioLizard2**

So what's everyone's favorite class so far? And what class have you enjoyed from other editions in DnD.

I'm holding off on my opinion until I see more paths though.

**Melissia**

Iunno, haven't seen information on the magical classes yet. Only seen info on paladins and barbarians, which are both kind of meh to me. Will play them eventually of course, but not my first choices.

**nomotog**

Well the wizard and the cleric are in the basic rules.

Automatically Appended Next Post:
From the wild magic table- You turn into a potted plant until the start of your next turn...

That is cute. Though I also found a bit of my worry again. The game has fluff. The game has crunch, but some times the crunch and the fluff doesn't connect. Like on the table there is a result that makes everyone around you resistant to pointy damage, but it doesn't say how. I mean it's magic yes, but how dose it look, how do you describe it? Is it like a shield, dose their skin turn to stone, or is it something more crazy?

**OrlandotheTechnicoloured**

I would think that with wild magic it should be something different each time otherwise it's not really 'wild' which might be why they've not gone into detail

so go wild (as it were)

stone skins, energy fields, mystical shields, all the opponants weapons become soft or blunted, maybe the plants in the area come alive and get in the way, of birds swoop in and take the blows etc

put it down to the player, give bonus XP for clever ideas, or maybe even penalise them if it's the same every time

**Ensis Ferrae**

ZebioLizard2 wrote:
And what class have you enjoyed from other editions in DnD.

My personal faves have been the Warden, Monk, and Assassin

**Seaward**

Chongara wrote:
What's the problem with Oath of Vengeance? It isn't the only Paladin oath, it's just the one I happened to cut and paste.

People justifying ends by any means are a well established part of both real life and fantasy worlds. Why wouldn't they have a paladin like this?

Have you seriously been lucky enough to avoid the vast swath of RPG players who seem to want any excuse to break an NPCs fingers, set sapient beings on fire, and pull a lot of gak that just sometimes crosses the line into sexual assault?

I swear there is this whole class of people who think Jack Bauer or your average Liam Neeson character are the height of ethics. Certainly these characters exist but they're not heroes and they're not paragons of anything save perhaps expedience, which hardly counts a virtue by any measure.

I get what WotC seems to be going for here. A crusading sort of paladin who goes out and slays dragons, or topples tyrants stopping along the way to help those affected by their actions.

What a lot of "That Guys" are going to do with it is use it as an excuse to cut off the hands of mooks that have surrendered, or play inquisitioner with anyone they assume has some small chance of having information.

No, I think they're pretty clearly going for Black Templars, or Judge Dredd with that particular path. They don't have to be a paragon of chivalry, they certainly don't have to be Lawful Good, and a DM's not going to be able to give them an Orc Baby Dilemma to make them fall. They absolutely are the ends justify the means sorts - they're happy to give up their "righteousness" if it brings about the end of a greater evil.

I'd be a fan if they weren't pretty clearly just recycled 4E Avengers, likely to have some Oath of Enmity mechanic.

**Alpharius**

We've been down this road before, elsewhere, but in the D&D World, Good and Evil really are Black and White at times.

I'm still trying to deal with Paladins that aren't human and Lawful Good though!

**Chongara**

Seaward wrote:
Chongara wrote:
What's the problem with Oath of Vengeance? It isn't the only Paladin oath, it's just the one I happened to cut and paste.

People justifying ends by any means are a well established part of both real life and fantasy worlds. Why wouldn't they have a paladin like this?

Have you seriously been lucky enough to avoid the vast swath of RPG players who seem to want any excuse to break an NPCs fingers, set sapient beings on fire, and pull a lot of gak that just sometimes crosses the line into sexual assault?

I swear there is this whole class of people who think Jack Bauer or your average Liam Neeson character are the height of ethics. Certainly these characters exist but they're not heroes and they're not paragons of anything save perhaps expedience, which hardly counts a virtue by any measure.

I get what WotC seems to be going for here. A crusading sort of paladin who goes out and slays dragons, or topples tyrants stopping along the way to help those affected by their actions.

What a lot of "That Guys" are going to do with it is use it as an excuse to cut off the hands of mooks that have surrendered, or play inquisitioner with anyone they assume has some small chance of having information.

No, I think they're pretty clearly going for Black Templars, or Judge Dredd with that particular path. They don't have to be a paragon of chivalry, they certainly don't have to be Lawful Good, and a DM's not going to be able to give them an Orc Baby Dilemma to make them fall. They absolutely are the ends justify the means sorts - they're happy to give up their "righteousness" if it brings about the end of a greater evil.

I'd be a fan if they weren't pretty clearly just recycled 4E Avengers, likely to have some Oath of Enmity mechanic.

<gravely voice>I am vengeance. To fight evil. I must become evil. Which is good for the greater good because I am evil but not as evil as them. Vengeance!</gravely voice> ? Jeez louise, this exactly what I'm talking about here. We've actually got someone endorsing baby-killing as being a-ok it's an Oath Vengeance.

**ZebioLizard2**

Chongara wrote:
Seaward wrote:
Chongara wrote:
What's the problem with Oath of Vengeance? It isn't the only Paladin oath, it's just the one I happened to cut and paste.

People justifying ends by any means are a well established part of both real life and fantasy worlds. Why wouldn't they have a paladin like this?

Have you seriously been lucky enough to avoid the vast swath of RPG players who seem to want any excuse to break an NPCs fingers, set sapient beings on fire, and pull a lot of gak that just sometimes crosses the line into sexual assault?

I swear there is this whole class of people who think Jack Bauer or your average Liam Neeson character are the height of ethics. Certainly these characters exist but they're not heroes and they're not paragons of anything save perhaps expedience, which hardly counts a virtue by any measure.

I get what WotC seems to be going for here. A crusading sort of paladin who goes out and slays dragons, or topples tyrants stopping along the way to help those affected by their actions.

What a lot of "That Guys" are going to do with it is use it as an excuse to cut off the hands of mooks that have surrendered, or play inquisitioner with anyone they assume has some small chance of having information.

No, I think they're pretty clearly going for Black Templars, or Judge Dredd with that particular path. They don't have to be a paragon of chivalry, they certainly don't have to be Lawful Good, and a DM's not going to be able to give them an Orc Baby Dilemma to make them fall. They absolutely are the ends justify the means sorts - they're happy to give up their "righteousness" if it brings about the end of a greater evil.

I'd be a fan if they weren't pretty clearly just recycled 4E Avengers, likely to have some Oath of Enmity mechanic.

<gravely voice>I am vengeance. To fight evil. I must become evil. Which is good for the greater good because I am evil but not as evil as them. Vengeance!</gravely voice> ? Jeez louise, this exactly what I'm talking about here. We've actually got someone endorsing baby-killing as being a-ok it's an Oath Vengeance.

You mean besides the fact that Paladin's being a specific lawful good class despite the fact they are just militarized fighter clerics of a god...

I still don't understand why they were made so specific in the first place, A paladin of Grummash and a paladin of Tor isn't exactly different aside from Allegiance, with clerics being un-specific is sort of the weird thing.