"Wizards of the Coast posts D&D Basic Rules" Topic

Wizards of the Coast has posted up the Basic Rules for the next edition of D&D.

Main page
link

Hope you enjoy!.

Amicalement
Armand

Thanks Armand!

Ted

A votre service mon ami! (smile)

Amicalement
Armand

The fact that they still use levels and (hörk, spit) alignment utterly baffles me.

Thank you!

No mention my friend.

Amicalement
Armand

Looking forward to these new rules. I have the starter set on pre-order.

Been reading through. Thank Bahamut, they've dumped the ridiculous video-game nomenclature and concepts from the abomination that was 4th Ed.

So far, it looks like a nice compromise between the roots of classic D&D and the attempt to add flavor and feats from 3rd on. A least I recognize the games I remember and love (Gygax's AD&D and Mentzer's Basic D&D), while not being put off by the changes of this new system.

There's a lot of emphasis on role play in these rules, particularly in the character development, with rules for personalities, traits, flaws, etc.. It's not just "roll a fighter and start hacking." While I like that approach, I think they've overdone it a bit. Heck, there's even a paragraph on sexual orientation, which I thought was absurdly unnecessary. (It's neither a rule nor a roll element, it's just saying your character can be what you want him/her/it to be… which is what players will do anyway, so the inclusion seemed pointless). Most of it also seems to focus on giving a character a somewhat melodramatic background with an overarching story goal. Not bad in and of itself, but how many displaced, vengeful heroes can a world have?

But at least the role play stuff will encourage players to expand into all the possibilities of D&D, and nothing in it precludes people from taking a more generic approach, or creating their own character concepts.

And I'm happy they kept the levels and the alignment; without them, it wouldn't be D&D. That's what other systems are for. Complaining about these in D&D is like complaining that chess still has pawns. They're part of the game.

The new system does go a long way towards making both work, perhaps better than originally. The experience point system appears to have been simplified so that all classes advance in level at the same rate (this might have been a feature of 3.x, but as I never played that, it's new to me). Each class also has special abilities which either arrive or increase at periodic levels. That's old hat for most, but my general impression is that it's been much better handled this time around, with the abilities being more suited to the nature of the class. The abilities "feel" right for the system and setting, and it's easy to see how they can easily be curtailed or restricted by players who prefer to avoid cinematic excesses: you can have a game where Legolas's shield surfing is possible, or you can dial it back to a more plausible, "realistic" world.

While the alignment system remains intact, it's much better explained in terms of how it supports role playing, and the game puts forth a logical argument for why certain monsters and monstrous humanoid races have global alignments: their gods made them that way. So orcs are evil because the orc god created them to be creatures of destruction-- in summary, they don't possess the free will to make good choices. So much for the age-old teen debate about slaughtering goblins.

I'm not done reading yet, but so far I do like what I see. And the combat system is clean and natural, with a logical approach to armor and weapons.

At the very least, it's once again about attacking with a weapon (or spell), not that "at will powers" and "utility powers" garbage from 4th.

Heck, I might even *buy* the new edition. And that's saying something.

Same here, looks playable, can't wait to find out.

1st level wizards have at will 1d10 damage ranged cantrips, and 4d6 damage first level spells.

Honestly I wish they'd let someone who actually likes D&D design an edition. Oh well, there's always the OSR.

Or you can house rule "no cantrips."

But as it is, 1st level mages were always underpowered in the original game, IMHO. One lousy spell that did 5 damage at the most on one combat round (and no others), a character with 4 HP (if lucky), no armor, no combat weaponry worth speaking of, lousy combat skills, and once you cast that spell you were essentially done for the gaming session until you could convince everyone else to rest for eight hours, during which time the DM invariably threw wandering monsters at the party, disrupting the rest. Meanwhile, the rest of the party, even if not fighters, can expect to do 1d6 to 1d10 damage with every combat swing, wear at least some sort of armor, and be more likely to survive attacks by sword, axe or spear (while a wizard would be lucky to survive a single thrown dagger).
So I think a bit more power at low levels for wizards is a good move, as is the mild shift away from "Vancian" magic to a more useful set of spell options.

The idea in old editions seemingly being that the feebleness of low level mages is made up for by the ultra-powerful spells they obtain at high levels; unbalanced by design, you could say!

I'll have to give it a thorough read, this new edition looks promising. I can't say I ever liked the alignment system, either, but as Parzival opines, it is central to D&D – too many spells, abilities, and items revolve around it.

Also, it looks like saving throws are now tied to characteristics, a nice simplification it seems they should have done years/decades ago!

I honestly liked 4e and really dislike the 'classic D&D' magic system. Who the heck wants to keep track of all their spell components?

Parzival, I guess the passage on sexual orientation is to forestall any 'outrage' from certain quarters. As for first level characters, true your MU was vulnerable, but was not expected to go toe to toe in every encounter, like a fighter. Even with 14 hp's you are talking bye byes after 3-4 hits from 1 HD monsters, and heaven help you if they had missile weapons. Don't also forget an MU could throw daggers or darts, which was sometimes all that was needed to push a beastie over it's limit.

Personally, I liked the cleric, a good balance of offence and defence and fun to play at any level. Thieves on the other hand, seemed an insane choice at low level, your life perpetually in the balance of the dice gods!