Switch Theme:

D&D (Fifth Edition): Basic Rules Free PDF (link in OP)  [RSS] Share on facebook Share on Twitter Submit to Reddit
»
Author Message
Advert


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.




Made in us
Badass "Sister Sin"






Camas, WA

 Melissia wrote:
I think you'll find that "tradition" is not a good argument with me

I'm one of the apparently small number of people who actually rather liked 4e, my only complaints were mostly about the non-combat rituals...

It may not be an appealing argument, but it is something you have to acknowledge when you say 'Grr, why is something like X. I want it like Y.'. Also, I'm well established as having loved 4th ed.

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
 
   
Made in us
Hangin' with Gork & Mork






I've been hearing rumblings of Bards being a bit overdone in 5E, though I haven't really dove into them yet to see it. As I understand it instead being sort of a Jack of All Trades, Master of None they are MASTER OF EVERYTHING!

 Melissia wrote:
I really need to get more in to powergaming, it feels like :/ it just usually doesn't interest me.


I feel the same way about level dipping. Whenever I see something where someone says something like "I want to play a Thief" and the responses are "Well you need a level of X, two levels of Y, and a level of Z. After that you can put levels in Thief and that is how you make a Thief" I die a little inside.

Amidst the mists and coldest frosts he thrusts his fists against the posts and still insists he sees the ghosts.
 
   
Made in us
Badass "Sister Sin"






Camas, WA

 Ahtman wrote:
I feel the same way about level dipping. Whenever I see something where someone says something like "I want to play a Thief" and the responses are "Well you need a level of X, two levels of Y, and a level of Z. After that you can put levels in Thief and that is how you make a Thief" I die a little inside.

Ooh, 3/3.5 must have been hard on you.

Heck, in 3, Ranger was only a dip class.

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
 
   
Made in us
[MOD]
Solahma






RVA

Disregard rumblings. Judge for thyself.

   
Made in us
Consigned to the Grim Darkness





USA

 pretre wrote:
 Ahtman wrote:
I feel the same way about level dipping. Whenever I see something where someone says something like "I want to play a Thief" and the responses are "Well you need a level of X, two levels of Y, and a level of Z. After that you can put levels in Thief and that is how you make a Thief" I die a little inside.
Ooh, 3/3.5 must have been hard on you.

Heck, in 3, Ranger was only a dip class.
That was probably one of the most annoying parts of 3.5 for me.

I prefer to play "pure" classes myself, unles they're classes explicitly designed otherwise-- like swordmage in 4e, which was the only good implementation of it in a DnD game so far.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
 Manchu wrote:
Disregard rumblings. Judge for thyself.
I keep trying to get people together for a game but no one wants to DM, even the people that have DMed in the past and typically are the ones who enjoy DMing don't really want to any more, it feels like.

This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2014/09/04 21:54:53


The people in the past who convinced themselves to do unspeakable things were no less human than you or I. They made their decisions; the only thing that prevents history from repeating itself is making different ones.
-- Adam Serwer
My blog
 
   
Made in us
Longtime Dakkanaut





 pretre wrote:
 Ahtman wrote:
I feel the same way about level dipping. Whenever I see something where someone says something like "I want to play a Thief" and the responses are "Well you need a level of X, two levels of Y, and a level of Z. After that you can put levels in Thief and that is how you make a Thief" I die a little inside.

Ooh, 3/3.5 must have been hard on you.

Heck, in 3, Ranger was only a dip class.


A lot of that had a lot to do with just how poorly 3.5e was put together. Like if at first level you picked "Fighter" and your buddy picked "Druid" and just said they were having their big pet dog as an animal companion, the animal companion was pretty much as good in a fight as you were possibly with more hp, and the dog came with a free druid! Even if you aren't a powergamer something is off if your highly trained warrior is a comparable asset to lassie.

That specific example is a bit of cherry pick, but a lot of the weird level-torturing shenanigans came out of desire to just make a concept work that wasn't really functional at the baseline. A lot of the 3.5 classes (especially in core!) just didn't do what they said in their fluff blurbs. Like there is a reason Flurry of Blows earned the fan nickname Flurry of Misses.

They learned their lessons later and most of the stuff from around the PHB2 era forward actually does what it says it does and they also tamped down in the other direction too. Nothing they released after that is as obscenely strong as the baseline Wizard, Druid or Cleric were.

This message was edited 4 times. Last update was at 2014/09/04 22:06:20


 
   
Made in us
Hangin' with Gork & Mork






 pretre wrote:
Ooh, 3/3.5 must have been hard on you.


I quit playing D&D sometime after 3rd came out and didn't play again until sometime after PHB2 came out for 4th. I really found the mechanics for 3rd unfun in most ways. I still prefer pretty much every other version of D&D over 3/3.5.

Amidst the mists and coldest frosts he thrusts his fists against the posts and still insists he sees the ghosts.
 
   
Made in us
Esteemed Veteran Space Marine




My secret fortress at the base of the volcano!

 pretre wrote:
 Melissia wrote:
I just wish it existed at all ,and that necromancy wasn't shoehorned in to "ERMAGERD WHADDAFUG EEEBUUULLLLLL!".

But necromancy has traditionally been evil... For what, 30-40 years now? I understand wishing, but it's kind of the established trend.


Necromancy hasn't strictly been evil (not even in Ravenloft, though it was damn hard to be a necro and *not* be evil in that setting) in D&D. As far as I can remember, only the spells that actually create undead creatures or utterly destroy someone's life-force are given the 'Evil' descriptor. The other spells are regarded as icky and of questionable taste, but overall necromancy is the school of nerf/debuff spells that don't get saving throws (at least in 3.5). I've run LN necromancers before and had a great time stripping levels and ability points off of the DM's helpless monsters, while the melee characters did the actual damage in the fight. Yeah, I knew fireball (they take away your wizard's license if you don't) but that was not my go-to spell for most fights.

Emperor's Eagles (undergoing Chapter reorganization)
Caledonian 95th (undergoing regimental reorganization)
Thousands Sons (undergoing Warband re--- wait, are any of my 40K armies playable?) 
   
Made in gb
Assassin with Black Lotus Poison





Bristol

 Chongara wrote:
 pretre wrote:
 Melissia wrote:
I just wish it existed at all ,and that necromancy wasn't shoehorned in to "ERMAGERD WHADDAFUG EEEBUUULLLLLL!".

But necromancy has traditionally been evil... For what, 30-40 years now? I understand wishing, but it's kind of the established trend.


With good reason. There is something about death and the dead that resonates pretty deeply with people. Especially in our cultural context it seems like the dead and their remains are something to be respected and left alone. It's a lot easier to make channeling death, manipulating the dead, draining life "Feel right" in an evil role than a good one.

I think with the right setting, strong world building and the right themes and tone, you can make it work in other ways. However it's enough of a challenge I think it's probably the right move to have Necromancy (or at least the deathy/poisony/zombie-y bits of it), evil by default.


And yet how many peoples characters have been resurrected by a temple? It's still messing with life force and the dead, just that in that case it suits them so they pretend it's something different.

Hmmmm... Gives me an idea for a world for a campaign. Temples won't resurrect you as it goes against the natural world so if you want somebody brought back you have to strike a bargain with a necromancer. Just how far would our heroes be willing to go to resurrect their comrade? Mwahahahaha!

This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2014/09/05 00:55:38


The Laws of Thermodynamics:
1) You cannot win. 2) You cannot break even. 3) You cannot stop playing the game.

Colonel Flagg wrote:You think you're real smart. But you're not smart; you're dumb. Very dumb. But you've met your match in me.
 
   
Made in us
Longtime Dakkanaut





 A Town Called Malus wrote:
 Chongara wrote:
 pretre wrote:
 Melissia wrote:
I just wish it existed at all ,and that necromancy wasn't shoehorned in to "ERMAGERD WHADDAFUG EEEBUUULLLLLL!".

But necromancy has traditionally been evil... For what, 30-40 years now? I understand wishing, but it's kind of the established trend.


With good reason. There is something about death and the dead that resonates pretty deeply with people. Especially in our cultural context it seems like the dead and their remains are something to be respected and left alone. It's a lot easier to make channeling death, manipulating the dead, draining life "Feel right" in an evil role than a good one.

I think with the right setting, strong world building and the right themes and tone, you can make it work in other ways. However it's enough of a challenge I think it's probably the right move to have Necromancy (or at least the deathy/poisony/zombie-y bits of it), evil by default.


And yet how many peoples characters have been resurrected by a temple? It's still messing with life force and the dead, just that in that case it suits them so they pretend it's something different.

Hmmmm... Gives me an idea for a world for a campaign. Temples won't resurrect you as it goes against the natural world so if you want somebody brought back you have to strike a bargain with a necromancer. Just how far would our heroes be willing to go to resurrect their comrade? Mwahahahaha!

Honestly, I've never been fond of the whole raise dead thing. D&D or otherwise I've never run a game in setting where death wasn't permanent. Generally speaking if I'm running a game when you die you die*. When I've been a player either my character has died before resurrections are on the table or I just switch characters. So It's never really been a point I've had to think about address much, beyond disliking the idea generally.


*I usually have something of a grace period for spells like Revivify. When you mechanically reach the "Dead" status you're only mostly dead from a narrative perspective... for a few minutes anyway, until your soul dissipates or the like. Or you're beyond all mundane recovery half-crushed or guts on the floor and coughing out your dying words in which case the spell is just "Cure really fethed up wounds". It's not an exact science.

This message was edited 4 times. Last update was at 2014/09/05 01:41:28


 
   
Made in gb
Foolproof Falcon Pilot





Livingston, United Kingdom

I always think that Raise Dead is a funny thing in D&D. On the one hand, forums tend to be full of people earnestly saying that they refuse to allow it in their games as GM. And certainly few other RPGs have the same idea of monetised immortality, though plenty have essentially unkillable dudes (Superhero games, 7th Sea, etc). But I think that in game it is probably rarely denied, since when a player loses their beloved character and is really bitterly disappointed by it, it seems like a hard route to take to say, "You can't cast that spell, that is in the book and which the Cleric automatically knows, that would allow you to undo this situation." I don't know. It just seems to me that I can sit at home and think, "No way would I allow that! Combat is serious business!" and then get into a game and find myself reluctant to be The Bad Guy in that situation. It is meant to be fun, after all, and the GMs role is very much to tailor the experience to give the players fun. not to create some perfect simulation.* D&D is also a game that requires the spell much more than, say, Warhammer Fantasy Roleplay, because the game's default state sort of expects a whole load of combat, and when you have so many combats unsurprisingly more of them will go against the players.

* Though that absolutely can be fun, depending on the groups. Just look at those guys who play Napoleonic Wargames...
   
Made in us
Longtime Dakkanaut





 Charles Rampant wrote:
I always think that Raise Dead is a funny thing in D&D. On the one hand, forums tend to be full of people earnestly saying that they refuse to allow it in their games as GM. And certainly few other RPGs have the same idea of monetised immortality, though plenty have essentially unkillable dudes (Superhero games, 7th Sea, etc). But I think that in game it is probably rarely denied, since when a player loses their beloved character and is really bitterly disappointed by it, it seems like a hard route to take to say, "You can't cast that spell, that is in the book and which the Cleric automatically knows, that would allow you to undo this situation." I don't know. It just seems to me that I can sit at home and think, "No way would I allow that! Combat is serious business!" and then get into a game and find myself reluctant to be The Bad Guy in that situation. It is meant to be fun, after all, and the GMs role is very much to tailor the experience to give the players fun. not to create some perfect simulation.* D&D is also a game that requires the spell much more than, say, Warhammer Fantasy Roleplay, because the game's default state sort of expects a whole load of combat, and when you have so many combats unsurprisingly more of them will go against the players.

* Though that absolutely can be fun, depending on the groups. Just look at those guys who play Napoleonic Wargames...


If you're removing raise dead from the game it's important to put everything on the table at the start so expectations are set all around. Like for my upcoming 5e game it's right in introduction to the setting that souls aren't immortal and decompose & dissipate shortly after death. It's a known fact in-universe and something that informs the spiritual lives and philosophy of those living in the setting. The cultures living in this world don't even have the concept of an afterlife because such a concept is plainly absurd to them.

In addition to setting expectations I like to provide players a way to control their risk. I generally include hero point rules that players can use for limited plot armor. D&D is a system that tends to assume death is cheap thus makes it something relatively easy to blunder into. Having a system in place when I want to play D&D but maybe just not with it's particular attitude towards death goes a long way to making the game "Feel" right for me. For example below are the rules I'm using for my upcoming game (adapted from my 3.P games, but they may need adjustment since I've never actually used 5e before. We'll see how they play out)

Spoiler:

Each session characters have 1 Hero Point they may spend for a benefit at any time. If this Hero Point is not spent it is lost. Additionally at the start of the campaign and each time they attain a new level characters gain 1 Hero Point, which they can retain indefinitely. A character may not have more than 5 Hero Points at any time (this includes the "temporary" Hero Point they gain each session):


Hero Points might also be awarded for particularly heroic and risky deeds or the completion of important events or adventures.

1 Hero Point may be spent to:

* Gain advantage on attack, ability check or save.
* Impose disadvantage on an enemy save against one your spells or abilities.
* Impose disadvantage on an enemy attack or ability check used against you.
* Re-roll the damage of an attack, variable numeric effect of a spell or ability or other effect caused by you. You may choose which of the results to use.
* Any other affect in-line with these uses, at the GMs discretion.

2 Hero Points may be spent to:

* Automatically stabilize or prevent Instant Death.
* Add your proficiency bonus to a roll it wouldn't normally apply to (so long as the roll does not require being proficient to attempt).
* Gain 1 free use of an ability that requires a short rest to regain.
* Any other affect in-line with these uses, at the GMs discretion

3 Hero Points may be spent to:

* Regain the uses of abilities as though you had taken a short rest. You don't gain any other benefits of a short rest.
* Get 1 free use of an ability that requires a long rest to regain.
* Any other affect in-line with these uses, at the GMs discretion

5 Hero Points may be spent to:

* Take an additional turn.
* Regain the uses of abilities as though you had taken a long rest. You don't gain any other benefits of a long rest.
* Any other affect in-line with these uses, at the GMs discretion


Since players always have 1 point per session, so long as they choose to hold on to the point they gain when they level up they've always got 1 get-out-jail free card per level. Since low levels are particularly short and dangerous it creates a period where players can come to an understanding about the level of lethality I'm going to run with, without actually experiencing death.Since since risk of death is at least partially tied to a resource the player controls, it gives them greater sense of agency. If it winds happening it's not just because of the monster or trap I threw at them, it's also because blew one of their "Permanent" hero points on restoring Action Surge a couple sessions back.

I don't particularly want to kill off my PCs, actually I'd rather avoid it. I get invested in the characters in my game too. It's just I want to be able to keep the concept of death as we know it in the real world. It's an easy way to always have real stakes on the table and characters that share one of the most basic truths about all our lives are easier to relate to and invest in than ones that don't.

This message was edited 10 times. Last update was at 2014/09/05 11:25:49


 
   
Made in us
[MOD]
Solahma






RVA

Ice T's D&D audiobook finally available:

http://www.audible.com/mt/Drizzt?source_code=AMZFPEM08071490AI

Also get stories read by David Duchovny, Sean Astin, and Weird Al Yankovic.

   
Made in us
Consigned to the Grim Darkness





USA

Well if you guys are flat out removing resurrection, I think if I DM I'll flat out change the rules for necromancy so it isn't any more evil than, say, evocation where you can melt someone alive with acid

That change fits in with the lore better than no resurrection, to me at least

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2014/09/08 20:19:22


The people in the past who convinced themselves to do unspeakable things were no less human than you or I. They made their decisions; the only thing that prevents history from repeating itself is making different ones.
-- Adam Serwer
My blog
 
   
Made in us
[MOD]
Solahma






RVA

Why do you keep saying necromancy is evil? Even in editions where spells could have the Evil descriptor, not all necromancy spells had it.

   
Made in us
Executing Exarch




The "evilness" of Necromancy should really depend on the culture involved - at least where the basic unintelligent undead are concerned. For instance, a Lawful Neutral culture that emphasized that death was not a barrier to service might view the reanimating of a corpse as a positive thing. Actively participating in the creation of intelligent undead might be another thing entirely (particularly since such forms of undead tend to default to evil). But I can imagine plenty of instances in which a non-Evil culture might allow the reanimation of a body (particularly in a ritual fashion).


On the resurrection note - The old D&D Gazateer that covered the knock-off Vikings had a rather unusual rule regarding Raise Dead. The spell was only usable in that particular region for roughly 24 hours after death. Afterwards, the local deities took an extremely dim view toward use of the spell, and raising someone with it involved the active agreement of the deities.
   
Made in us
Consigned to the Grim Darkness





USA

 Manchu wrote:
Why do you keep saying necromancy is evil? Even in editions where spells could have the Evil descriptor, not all necromancy spells had it.
But a lot seem to, and most of the prestige classes for arcane necromancy (if not all of them) required you to be non-good.

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2014/09/08 20:52:43


The people in the past who convinced themselves to do unspeakable things were no less human than you or I. They made their decisions; the only thing that prevents history from repeating itself is making different ones.
-- Adam Serwer
My blog
 
   
Made in us
Longtime Dakkanaut





 Melissia wrote:
Well if you guys are flat out removing resurrection, I think if I DM I'll flat out change the rules for necromancy so it isn't any more evil than, say, evocation where you can melt someone alive with acid

That change fits in with the lore better than no resurrection, to me at least


Hey different strokes for different folks, right? Kind of the cool thing about RPGs. I can be over here all "I'm totally hating on the revolving door afterlife, but I kind of like the way they've flavored death magic" and you can be all "I don't mind the revolving door afterlife, but they're totally being unfair to necromancy".

I remember a buddy of mine talking about doing a game set in a sort of world where nobody did mundane labor anymore, since it was all done with reanimated skeletons. Sort of Fido D&D, just without the unreliability of control.

This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2014/09/08 21:02:12


 
   
Made in us
[MOD]
Solahma






RVA

 Melissia wrote:
But a lot seem to, and most of the prestige classes for arcane necromancy (if not all of them) required you to be non-good.
Because those prestige classes focused on the non-good aspects of necromancy -- i.e., grave defilement and corpse mutilation.

   
Made in us
Consigned to the Grim Darkness





USA

Which basically means the only way I could have a good arcane necromancer (there were a couple good divine necromancer prestige classes) was to houserule my own class. And ... I hate doing that. NEver feel like I can achieve the right level of power for a class :/ mind you this is probablybecause 3.5 was always broken anyway...

The people in the past who convinced themselves to do unspeakable things were no less human than you or I. They made their decisions; the only thing that prevents history from repeating itself is making different ones.
-- Adam Serwer
My blog
 
   
Made in us
Longtime Dakkanaut





 Melissia wrote:
Which basically means the only way I could have a good arcane necromancer (there were a couple good divine necromancer prestige classes) was to houserule my own class. And ... I hate doing that. NEver feel like I can achieve the right level of power for a class :/ mind you this is probablybecause 3.5 was always broken anyway...


What's wrong with just.. straight Necromancer? Like straight up wizard all the way.

I'll agree 3.5 was a bit tricky to homebrew for. I mean it was certainly possible to get good at creating the content it just took a fair amount of dedication to learn the skill. Way more than would be reasonable for most people.
   
Made in us
Consigned to the Grim Darkness





USA

I did that, eventually, because of no other alternatives. But well, WotC really don't like non-divine necromancers in terms of power level. All the really good necro stuff is in the divine spellcasting stuff sadly :/

This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2014/09/08 23:39:37


The people in the past who convinced themselves to do unspeakable things were no less human than you or I. They made their decisions; the only thing that prevents history from repeating itself is making different ones.
-- Adam Serwer
My blog
 
   
Made in us
Esteemed Veteran Space Marine




My secret fortress at the base of the volcano!

 Melissia wrote:
I did that, eventually, because of no other alternatives. But well, WotC really don't like non-divine necromancers in terms of power level. All the really good necro stuff is in the divine spellcasting stuff sadly :/


That's something I noticed, too. Divine necros get Animate Dead earlier than arcane necros do, and virtually all of the prestige classes were divine in origin (not that I cared about prestige classes... you almost always get more bang for your buck going straight base class or maybe picking up a few levels of another base class than you do multiclassing). Why did the D&D guys think divine necros should be more powerful than arcane necros? Most of the time I see necros in fiction they tend to be roughly analogous to arcane casters, rather than divine casters.

Emperor's Eagles (undergoing Chapter reorganization)
Caledonian 95th (undergoing regimental reorganization)
Thousands Sons (undergoing Warband re--- wait, are any of my 40K armies playable?) 
   
Made in us
Badass "Sister Sin"






Camas, WA

In the D&D universes, manipulation of life force has always been more closely associated with divine than arcane.

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
 
   
Made in us
Hangin' with Gork & Mork






Well 'divine' Necromancers would get their abilities from a deity, and a deity that would give you a skeleton army probably isn't going to be Lawful or Good. Within the cosmology of D&D most deities aren't big fans of commanding the undead or forcing them into servitude, with some outright disdaining the idea. They derive their powers from different sources so it makes sense that they would have different attitudes and approaches. An arcane Necromancer is more like a Doctor, obsessed with the nature of life and death and understanding how it works whereas a divine Necromancer would be controlling undead based on their deity's proclivities.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
 pretre wrote:
In the D&D universes, manipulation of life force has always been more closely associated with divine than arcane.


Don't recall about earlier editions but in AD&D you specialize in Necromancy as a Wizard.

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2014/09/09 15:45:33


Amidst the mists and coldest frosts he thrusts his fists against the posts and still insists he sees the ghosts.
 
   
Made in us
[MOD]
Solahma






RVA

I think pretre is referring to healing.

   
Made in us
Badass "Sister Sin"






Camas, WA

Exactly, and although it could be done with the arcane necromancy school, it was always better off being divine.

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
 
   
Made in us
Consigned to the Grim Darkness





USA

Which is something I feel is kind of wrong, given that it basically cuts out a huge part of how I think Necromancy should work :/

The people in the past who convinced themselves to do unspeakable things were no less human than you or I. They made their decisions; the only thing that prevents history from repeating itself is making different ones.
-- Adam Serwer
My blog
 
   
Made in us
Badass "Sister Sin"






Camas, WA

 Melissia wrote:
Which is something I feel is kind of wrong, given that it basically cuts out a huge part of how I think Necromancy should work :/

Right, I'm just explaining historical context.

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
 
   
Made in us
[MOD]
Solahma






RVA

Perhaps you could lay out exactly what you think necromancy should be like?

   
 
Forum Index » Board Games, Roleplaying Games & Card Games
Go to: