A Grognard's Guide to 5E D&D Rules

[Person_Man]

Sorcerer and table of contents are now public.

Character Creation looks like its about 163 pages long.

• 7 pages explaining the process.
• 33 pages of Races.
• 75 pages of Classes/Subclasses.
• 22 pages of Background.
• 19 pages of Equipment.
• 2 pages of Multiclassing rules.
• 5 pages of Feats.

Plus an additional 90 pages of spellcasting rules and spells for magic using classes.

Sorcerer looks extremely similar to Wizard. Cha based, 1st through 9th level arcane spells using the same Spells Know/Spells per Day format, Cantrips, plus "Origin" and Metamagic class abilities. I'm guessing Origin is very similar to the Pathfinder take on Sorcerers. New 2nd level signature ability is "Font of Magic" - any guesses as to what that means?

[Wrenn]

[QUOTE=Person_Man;17826045 My argument is not that options are bad. My argument is that core options should be simple for new players to understand.[/QUOTE]

Like Basic?

[pwykersotz]

No. My opinion is that there should be a ton of options, but they should be packaged and laid out in such a way that they are optional and largely independent of one another, so that a new player has to read and the number of choices that a new player has to make should be kept to a minimum, and you don't have to worry about the metagame/optimization when you make each choice.

Spoiler: Examples:

Show

1) Required subclasses: This is the biggest offender. It means that players have to basically wade through 50-80 core options to make a class decision. I think 9-12 core classes would have been fine, and then they could have added Kits or Archetypes or new Powers or whatever in a separate book, maybe in about a year after people had really figured out the class balance. Alternatively, you could have set up a Track system like Legend, or kept something close to the Power system from 4E but make every Power scale through all 20 levels so that there's no duplication and no fiddly stuff, or any other system that doesn't involve players reading through 80+ pages just to make a class decision.

2) Skills: Split up between class and background and race, which means that you have to first read through all the different Skills and understand them before making a choice about your class, background, or race, and then you need to assemble your Proficient Skills from those 3 different sources. It would have made a lot more sense just to limit it to one source (presumably class or background), or to simply make it independent of your class/background/race.

It also could have been dramatically simplified a lot more by following the model of 1E & 2E, you just made an Ability Score roll. Non-Weapon Proficiencies were an optional part of the game. 5E could have followed a similar model, where each class is Proficient in 2 Ability Scores (and Rogues were proficient in 4) of your choice for the purpose of all checks. And then there's an optional Skill system that's more granular (to please people who like that).

3) Race: Racial abilities should be optional. This could be done in a number of different ways. For example, being a Dwarf should give you access to Dwarf Feats (or Powers, or a track of abilities, etc). Remove the Christmas tree of different abilities and Ability Score bonuses entirely, so that there is no implied or actual "right" or wrong Race/Class combination. That way, all you have to do is choose fluff. You don't even have to read the racial descriptions if you don't want to, since most of them are iconic.

4) Backgrounds: I love Backgrounds. But again, the crunch from Backgrounds should be optional, so that players don't need to read through 25 pages of them before picking one. Decouple Skills from Backgrounds. Make the Background abilities (which are really cool) an optional add on, and/or a Feat option, or Tracks of abilities (where you get more impressive Narrative abilities as you gain levels).

5) Spells: Although they've gone a long way in simplifying and re-balancing things, there is no reason to have 9 levels/200+ core spells with a convoluted Short Rest + Long Rest refresh mechanic. Come up with a more streamlined casting system, boil it down to the most iconic spells, remove all duplicative spells, and have all spells scale so that you don't have the oddball "cast out of a higher level slot" issue.


The key thing to remember is that any edition of D&D is going to have literally 10,000+ pages of splat and 3rd party material printed for it. Every spell, Feat, class, subclass, Background, magic item, and everything else that you can imagine is going to be written by someone at some point in the not too distant future. My argument is not that options are bad. My argument is that core options should be simple for new players to understand.

This is very insightful. Well said.

[Lycoris]

Sorcerer looks extremely similar to Wizard. Cha based, 1st through 9th level arcane spells using the same Spells Know/Spells per Day format, Cantrips, plus "Origin" and Metamagic class abilities. I'm guessing Origin is very similar to the Pathfinder take on Sorcerers. New 2nd level signature ability is "Font of Magic" - any guesses as to what that means?

As they also gain Sorcery Points at that level, I'm assuming that they're intrinsically linked in some way. Past that, I'm guessing it's something that'll work similarly to metamagic, though the fact that they outright get metamagic the following level may say otherwise.

[Squirrel_Dude]

Basic question, as I am completely unfamiliar with 4th edition beyond playing a Bugbear Rogue for one 2 hours session.


Was metamagic a thing in 4e? How similar was it to metamagic in 3.5/PF?

[obryn]

Basic question, as I am completely unfamiliar with 4th edition beyond playing a Bugbear Rogue for one 2 hours session.

Was metamagic a thing in 4e? How similar was it to metamagic in 3.5/PF?

The first way is through feats. There are some feats - like Enlarge Spell - which modify the properties of a spell when you'd like. In this case, it reduces the damage of a Wizard spell in return for expanding the burst or blast. Others, like Resounding Thunder, work similarly for effects with certain keywords at no penalty.

The second way was through Utility powers, though mostly these weren't as popular.

[SpawnOfMorbo]

The first way is through feats. There are some feats - like Enlarge Spell - which modify the properties of a spell when you'd like. In this case, it reduces the damage of a Wizard spell in return for expanding the burst or blast. Others, like Resounding Thunder, work similarly for effects with certain keywords at no penalty.

The second way was through Utility powers, though mostly these weren't as popular.

This is one of the few areas I feel like 4e drop the ball.

[Morty]

Really? I honestly don't see metamagic as all that important. It's far more trouble than it's worth in 3e.

[obryn]

Really? I honestly don't see metamagic as all that important. It's far more trouble than it's worth in 3e.

Yeah, me either, frankly, and it ties in with my overall dissatisfaction with "feats." Given 4e's design, it should get just as much consideration as any other power source did, and it ended up getting probably more, overall.

[SpawnOfMorbo]

Really? I honestly don't see metamagic as all that important. It's far more trouble than it's worth in 3e.

Not super important to the game but an area of the game that has so much potential, and they wasted it.

[da_chicken]

Not super important to the game but an area of the game that has so much potential, and they wasted it.

Pretty much this. The cost of metamagic was too high to be worthwhile. I don't think I've ever used anything other than Extend, Empower, or Quicken, with the latter being restricted to near max level. Oh, and elemental swapping feats, because those are abusive as hell. Sudden metamagic helped, but was not flexible enough. Even metamagic rods didn't help enough. They've tried a number of things to make it work, but none of them have been flexible enough. Presumably sorcery points can be used to empower/extend/maximize/etc., but I'll be interested to see how they go about doing it.

[Morty]

You mean potential for what? Fiddling with the spells' parameters? Other than sculpting the spells' areas of effect, I really don't see much of a point to it.

Also, to get back to the earlier discussion:

Really on the attribute front, I wish they had just gone the Gamma World route. "You're a Rogue? You have 18 Dex. Wizard? 18 Int. Barbarian? 18 Strength. Everything else, do whatever. But we're not distinguishing your character by incompetence in his field of choice." Was that in the playtest at some point, or am I misremembering?

I don't think it was. But I agree that the assumption of competence in your class's main field might work. Except I believe every class should have at least two attributes they can specialize in.

[Person_Man]

Updated class section to reflect the subclasses for every class, which has been publicly posted by WotC.

There are a total of 40 subclass options in the 5E Player's Handbook. Oddly, most classes only get 1-3 subclass options, but the Wizard gets 8 (one for each of the traditional schools of magic) and Cleric gets 7 (covering the most popular domains/god types).

The subclass system is extremely similar to the 5E Pathfinder Archetype system, though more regimented.

Updated Bard based on publicly posted preview.

[Human Paragon 3]

You left off that bard gets his choice of any 3 skill proficiencies.

[1eGuy]

Sorcerer and table of contents are now public.

Character Creation looks like its about 163 pages long.

• 7 pages explaining the process.
• 33 pages of Races.
• 75 pages of Classes/Subclasses.
• 22 pages of Background.
• 19 pages of Equipment.
• 2 pages of Multiclassing rules.
• 5 pages of Feats.

Well, that sounds about as bad as I was expecting it to be. 75 pages of classes? What is wrong with these people? I want to get people from the office round for an adventure, not a book club reading.

No one is ever going to pick this up and start playing unless they're already a player; which is suicide for the game and the company (WotC, not Hasbro).

[Demonic Spoon]

Well, that sounds about as bad as I was expecting it to be. 75 pages of classes? What is wrong with these people? I want to get people from the office round for an adventure, not a book club reading.

No one is ever going to pick this up and start playing unless they're already a player; which is suicide for the game and the company (WotC, not Hasbro).

Man, it would be great if WotC would release a simplified version of the rules, a set of basic rules, to make the game palatable for brand new players.

[Doug Lampert]

Man, it would be great if WotC would release a simplified version of the rules, a set of basic rules, to make the game palatable for brand new players.

Yep, in the basic rules character creation might well start on say, page 6, and by the time you get to the end of page 41 you'd be done!

Only 36 pages of character creation to cover the simplest builds of the four basic classes! No beginner could ever object to reading 36 pages of rules to create a character prior to the next 65 pages of basic rules (not to mention the pages before that starts and the sample character sheets and other stuff) after which you still haven't got a single monster or item of treasure or any real information on what these characters are supposed to be doing or what the GM should do.

A 110 page document which heavily references other rules (feats for example) and isn't actually adequate to play and calls itself "basic", that won't discourage anyone.

There is a beginner set out. But the basic rules themselves are a disaster in terms of getting in new players without an experienced GM and will only get longer as more material is added. The current basics are the PHB basics, I believe they plan to add DMG and MM basics as the first books come out.

[SpawnOfMorbo]

Yep, in the basic rules character creation might well start on say, page 6, and by the time you get to the end of page 41 you'd be done!

Only 36 pages of character creation to cover the simplest builds of the four basic classes! No beginner could ever object to reading 36 pages of rules to create a character prior to the next 65 pages of basic rules (not to mention the pages before that starts and the sample character sheets and other stuff) after which you still haven't got a single monster or item of treasure or any real information on what these characters are supposed to be doing or what the GM should do.

A 110 page document which heavily references other rules (feats for example) and isn't actually adequate to play and calls itself "basic", that won't discourage anyone.

There is a beginner set out. But the basic rules themselves are a disaster in terms of getting in new players without an experienced GM and will only get longer as more material is added. The current basics are the PHB basics, I believe they plan to add DMG and MM basics as the first books come out.

Funny, since the basic rules release I've personally played with 43 (wish it was 42, but alas) completely new players to D&D and not a single one of them (some as young as 12) had a problem running through it. Sure some small questions where asked (mostly by the 30 some year olds who never played before) but things have been going great.

Give people some credit, it isn't like everyone is an idiot and can't pick up the basic rules and run with it.

Hell, a few of the teenagers picked it up faster than some veterans of the game, since you know, they didn't have other edition rules competiting for memory space and junk.

[rlc]

Character Creation looks like its about 163 pages long.
Plus an additional 90 pages of spellcasting rules and spells for magic using classes.

well over half of it for spell stuff.
lame.

[Knaight]

Funny, since the basic rules release I've personally played with 43 (wish it was 42, but alas) completely new players to D&D and not a single one of them (some as young as 12) had a problem running through it. Sure some small questions where asked (mostly by the 30 some year olds who never played before) but things have been going great.

Give people some credit, it isn't like everyone is an idiot and can't pick up the basic rules and run with it.

Hell, a few of the teenagers picked it up faster than some veterans of the game, since you know, they didn't have other edition rules competiting for memory space and junk.

It's not a matter of inability, but a matter of time expenditure. RPGs tend to be really long, and some people just don't want to deal with the sheer length. D&D core rules usually run to 900+ pages, which is more than a number of novels. That's a kind of ridiculous standard.

[Sartharina]

Yep, in the basic rules character creation might well start on say, page 6, and by the time you get to the end of page 41 you'd be done!

Only 36 pages of character creation to cover the simplest builds of the four basic classes! No beginner could ever object to reading 36 pages of rules to create a character prior to the next 65 pages of basic rules (not to mention the pages before that starts and the sample character sheets and other stuff) after which you still haven't got a single monster or item of treasure or any real information on what these characters are supposed to be doing or what the GM should do.

A 110 page document which heavily references other rules (feats for example) and isn't actually adequate to play and calls itself "basic", that won't discourage anyone.

There is a beginner set out. But the basic rules themselves are a disaster in terms of getting in new players without an experienced GM and will only get longer as more material is added. The current basics are the PHB basics, I believe they plan to add DMG and MM basics as the first books come out.

Yeah... 110 pages is a bit light for a reference document trying to teach people the game, since about two thirds of it are completely worthless to any given player - but never the same two thirds for any given two. Presentation matters far more than size - the basic PDF could be reduced to a few-page SRD... but then you lose all the stuff that actually carries instruction and guidance.

[T.G. Oskar]

The subclass system is extremely similar to the 5E Archetype system, though more regimented.

You mean the PF Archetype system, or the subclass from 4e Essentials? You're referencing the system itself, unless you refer to 6e already (do they return to 3e stuff in 6e, o seer? ;) )

If meaning the first, it's not exactly like the Archetype system, since it doesn't replace anything: in fact, choosing no archetype means you gain nothing. It behaves more like Prestige Paths, though without requirements: they're part of the class, not a new class on its own. That's why I feel it's more like 4e Essentials: a new way to play the class, changing some of the core things of the system, except it doesn't change anything.

IMO, it's a bit more complex. I'd say it's more like WoW's Talent Trees or DDO's Prestige Enchantment trees, but you don't have the flexibility to choose between the different trees (you're locked into one). AGE system (and specifically Dragon Age) has specializations, which grant advancements in specific levels (6, 8, 10) and are specific to class, but those ALSO have requirements (explicit requirements, that is; Eldritch Knight has an implicit requirement in order to cast spells, but you still get them even without the right ability score).

Also: how about showing the Bard preview? I know it's on another thread, but the Bard is one class that has shifted violently with editions: from 1e triple-classing (Fighter/Thief/Druid, but you get Bard powers instead of Druid) to 2e Rogue class without spells, to 3.x with partial (2/3rds) spellcasting, to 4e "Arcane Leader", to 5e where it will probably reign as king of classes (judging by what it offers, though I think its limitations will be whether Bardic Inspiration/Song of Rest will require concentration like spells). That's one class that has definitely changed, compared to the relatively static Big Four and some others.

[Knaight]

Yeah... 110 pages is a bit light for a reference document trying to teach people the game, since about two thirds of it are completely worthless to any given player - but never the same two thirds for any given two. Presentation matters far more than size - the basic PDF could be reduced to a few-page SRD... but then you lose all the stuff that actually carries instruction and guidance.

110 pages is hardly light. There are specific things that are conspicuously missing, but there are plenty of complete game systems which can be picked up by a new group and played, yet clock in at less than 110 pages. Nemesis is 60, it's not a rules light game, and it fits that criterion to a T - mostly because it's concise where it needs to be, but actually contains useful info. The basic set really could stand to be more concise in places, but is also missing stuff.

[archaeo]

110 pages is hardly light. There are specific things that are conspicuously missing, but there are plenty of complete game systems which can be picked up by a new group and played, yet clock in at less than 110 pages. Nemesis is 60, it's not a rules light game, and it fits that criterion to a T - mostly because it's concise where it needs to be, but actually contains useful info. The basic set really could stand to be more concise in places, but is also missing stuff.

Responding as much to the length & complexity thread of the conversation as much as you yourself, Knaight,

As has been said, keep in mind that the Basic PDF is going to get an appendix of monsters, a few "essential" modules/dials, magic item rules, and adventure construction advice. Nemesis will be all the shorter in comparison to the full Basic. But I'm not sure how this is at all a disaster. For the experienced player, obviously, more is better; 5e is quick to pick up if you're familiar with any d20 system. For the beginner, however, I'd argue that it still isn't a big deal.

I, for one, can remember being a pretty young fellow and still pouring over complicated manuals or intricate game systems. That brand of nerdery isn't going away any time soon, and it's always been part of the core constituency for D&D: kids fascinated by big games and the big books they come in. In my own experience, I found Basic to be well written and generally engaging. Full of flavor, even if it's all rather cliche flavor, to a certain extent. A pleasure, even.

Length and complexity aren't necessarily bad things. And giving away all that length and complexity (and Basic will end up being both) seems like a net win for pretty much everybody.

(As for a quick introduction to 5e, the Stater Set is probably still the way to go. What is it, like ~100 pages total, 60% of them an adventure from level 1-5? Pregens, obviously, but if you're the sort of player who balks at a pregen, you're probably the sort of player who will download Basic to scratch that itch.)

[Knaight]

Length and complexity aren't necessarily bad things. And giving away all that length and complexity (and Basic will end up being both) seems like a net win for pretty much everybody.

No, they aren't. They're neutral - some people like them, some people don't, it's nice to have options for people all along that spectrum, and with RPGs as a whole we do. It's just that there's been a great deal of claiming that people who favor shorter games which aren't as detailed are just too stupid to handle the longer, more complex ones. That's nonsense, and it's honestly quite offensive.

[Person_Man]

You left off that bard gets his choice of any 3 skill proficiencies.

Updated. Thanks for the catch.

You mean the PF Archetype system, or the subclass from 4e Essentials? You're referencing the system itself, unless you refer to 6e already (do they return to 3e stuff in 6e, o seer? ;) )

Yes, I meant PF Archetype system. I misspoke (miswrote?), and have corrected it. But after reading your comment, I agree that it is more like the the 4E Prestige Paths.


In my opinion, the 5E subclass system is an attempt to:

1) Cater to every possible character idea. You want to play an Assassin? OK, here's an Assassin subclass.

2) Make character building easier. Because class abilities are packaged in subclasses, you don't have to pick new Powers or anything else every level (unless you're a spellcaster, then you have to choose spells). You just have to choose the concept you like.

However, in practice, I strongly dislike the idea.

First, it gives credence to the false idea that in order to play X character concept you need a class or subclass named X. You can play a Samurai without taking class levels in Samurai.

Second and more importantly, it segregates class abilities in a way that makes customization very difficult. If I like the 3rd level Thief subclass ability but the 9th level Assassin ability, I have to choose one or the other, and there is no possible way for me to combine them.

Also: how about showing the Bard preview? I know it's on another thread, but the Bard is one class that has shifted violently with editions: from 1e triple-classing (Fighter/Thief/Druid, but you get Bard powers instead of Druid) to 2e Rogue class without spells, to 3.x with partial (2/3rds) spellcasting, to 4e "Arcane Leader", to 5e where it will probably reign as king of classes (judging by what it offers, though I think its limitations will be whether Bardic Inspiration/Song of Rest will require concentration like spells). That's one class that has definitely changed, compared to the relatively static Big Four and some others.

I agree that the Bard has yet to nail down a set of iconic abilities that are consistent across editions.

With 9th level spells, I'm hoping that the Bard's spell list is very tight, like the 3.5 Beguiler. If done well, that would hopefully resolve any balance issues.

[1eGuy]

However, in practice, I strongly dislike the idea.

First, it gives credence to the false idea that in order to play X character concept you need a class or subclass named X. You can play a Samurai without taking class levels in Samurai.

Well, I agree with this. The Cavalier in 1e (UA) was a pointless addition, as was the Barbarian. They're both just fighters plus roleplay. Paladins' powers were a bit more distinct so that doesn't bother me so much.

Second and more importantly, it segregates class abilities in a way that makes customization very difficult. If I like the 3rd level Thief subclass ability but the 9th level Assassin ability, I have to choose one or the other, and there is no possible way for me to combine them.

I don't really agree with this, though, as I don't like mixing classes except for demi-humans (which I hardly ever see in play anyway). I prefer a strong core-identity for the class, with modifications coming from the player rather than the rules.

If there has to be mechanical fluff to support the class, then subclasses like assassins who get assassination abilities as well as their parent class' abilities is okay but should be kept to the minimum.

Something D&D has suffered from right down the line has been "grabbagitis" where the books give you a kit of parts for a wide range of settings/characters and then DMs and players use them all all the time instead of taking a selection and building something distinct with them. The former is fun but when it's all you ever see it starts to get old.

[Squirrel_Dude]

As someone who has been playing Pathfinder for a while now, I have honestly come to hate archetypes, subclasses, and other regimented ways give a character a tree of abilities, for the same reason that PF is getting me close to hating feats.


You almost always end up in a situation where you have to swim across the river of crap to get to the happy fields on the other side. Sometimes it's where you have to step in a puddle of crap, but the point remains the same. To get X and Y abilities you actually want, you have to take ability Z that no one wants. With feats it's awful, terrible feat chains (Combat Expertise + Dodge -> Mobility -> Spring Attack --> Whirlwind Attack), and with archetypes it's just getting stuck with abilities that plain aren't any good (Sweeping Fend and Steadfast Pike of the Polearm Fighter Archetype).


Archetypes have also become one of Paizo's more clever ways to print the same ****ing content over and over. "Hey, let's just have alchemists and bards duplicate content from every other class! Trapfinding for everybody!"


There are a couple other issues I have with archetypes, and I doubt all (or even most) of them will carry over to 5e, but I've seen this movie before and it ends with an absurd amount of rules bloat from useless archetypes that aren't actually that great at their supposed niche.

[SouthpawSoldier]

Honestly, if it wasn't for my love and familiarity for DnD source material, I wonder if I would be as loyal or interested in 5E.

I've been doing a TON of reading into other systems, as suggested. While I lack the play experience to say "____" is better than "___" I'm finding a bunch of aspects to different systems that make more sense than 3.5. Some traits are found in 5E, but there are things I find elsewhere I like more. The "Tome of Awesome" rewrite for 3.5 that incorperates feats that scale by level; no more wasted feat chains. SW and other systems that drop ability scores in favor of straight modifiers to simplify the game. Legend's rule of "No Dead Levels" and character mutability. The Cortex+ leveling system used for the new Firefly RPG; using specific events from earlier adventures so advancement is related to what the character has actually experienced.

I know I'm underqualified to design my own game. I'm sure that my lack of gaming experience means that my opinions of 5E/Basic lack relative weight. But I think 5E will do what it set out to do; attract new players. Archetypes may feel pigeonholing to experienced players, but simplified choices are great for people getting started. In my new group, we have a 11 year old trying to play 3.5 along with his dad. Our DM is putting in lots of work to keep the game interesting and simple for him. Other guys are new to 3.5, and were unaware of things like skill synergy bonuses until I pointed it out. Even having only played a year or so, I'm finding myself giving more advice and info than I'm getting. A 5E/Basic game would alleviate a lot of that. I'm sure there are better designed games out there, but I think it's a great intro to DnD.

[Knaight]

You almost always end up in a situation where you have to swim across the river of crap to get to the happy fields on the other side. Sometimes it's where you have to step in a puddle of crap, but the point remains the same. To get X and Y abilities you actually want, you have to take ability Z that no one wants. With feats it's awful, terrible feat chains (Combat Expertise + Dodge -> Mobility -> Spring Attack --> Whirlwind Attack), and with archetypes it's just getting stuck with abilities that plain aren't any good (Sweeping Fend and Steadfast Pike of the Polearm Fighter Archetype).

That's not an issue with feats. That's an issue with prerequisite feats (which I'd be more than happy to see gone), which aren't anywhere near inherent to the feat structure.