Basic D&D PDF is available


4th Edition

1 to 50 of 190 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | next > last >>
Liberty's Edge

1 person marked this as a favorite.

Basic D&D PDF is available.

Really easy to download.


Yep indeedy

Sovereign Court RPG Superstar 2010 Top 16, 2011 Top 32

Indeed. I read through it, but I didn't see anything especially novel or improved over my current system or even 3rd edition. I expected better.


What

Really. Even for a basic cook book there is good sauce and gravy.....should make for a lighter fluffier game, IMO....more pace and dynamic combat for me


I know what I'll be reading this holiday weekend.

Dark Archive

4 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber

For the Rashemi, the male name options do not include "Minsc" as an option. D&D Next has failed.


I only downloaded the free 100-page basic rules. I'm not terribly impressed. I wasn't terribly impressed with the playtest, either, so no big shocker. It doesn't look bad, mind you- just not terribly impressive.

Liberty's Edge

2 people marked this as a favorite.
James Martin wrote:
Indeed. I read through it, but I didn't see anything especially novel or improved over my current system or even 3rd edition. I expected better.

Spells don't scale unless you use a higher level slot.

Magic items not assumed in the math.
No BAB which splits into smaller amounts.
The powerful buff spells don't stack for the same caster.
Bounded accuracy.
Fighter is scary.
Cleric, fighter, and wizard get the same number of skills.

Just pulling out magic items is a huge improvement. Cutting down the math and modifiers is another.

Sovereign Court RPG Superstar 2010 Top 16, 2011 Top 32

Sorry, Charlie. None of that is novel. Mearls did much of the same with Iron Gods. BAB is now proficiency bonus. Buff spells don't stack is easily done with descriptors in 3rd edition. Skills has been done before. It feels like they tried to think of the best parts of every system and throw them together, instead of building a coherent organic system.

It's not for me. And sadly, I fear it's not impressive enough to draw many established gamers into giving up their current systems and investing in a new one. It might work well for new gamers. Time will tell.

Liberty's Edge

1 person marked this as a favorite.
James Martin wrote:

Sorry, Charlie. None of that is novel. Mearls did much of the same with Iron Gods. BAB is now proficiency bonus. Buff spells don't stack is easily done with descriptors in 3rd edition. Skills has been done before. It feels like they tried to think of the best parts of every system and throw them together, instead of building a coherent organic system.

It's not for me. And sadly, I fear it's not impressive enough to draw many established gamers into giving up their current systems and investing in a new one. It might work well for new gamers. Time will tell.

I think you mean Iron Heroes.

You got it right. This is D&D. 4E went for the new and now 5E is blending all the editions together. I ran 3.0, 3.5, PF, 4E, and D&D Next. I know which one runs the fastest and helps me DM the most.

As for you, you have lots of other options. So let me enjoy D&D 5E and you can play your RPGs. No need to try to diss 5E just 'cause it doesn't work for you. And just because I'm playing 5E doesn't mean that 3E isn't great for you.

As for me, I have no doubt it will bring plenty of gamers in, both old and new. Heck, Mike Mearls even posted in the new forums. I have seen things I never thought I'd see happen.

Sovereign Court RPG Superstar 2010 Top 16, 2011 Top 32

3 people marked this as a favorite.

I didn't diss anything. I stated my opinion, you challenged my opinion, I provided reasons for my opinion. It's not for me. I don't want it destroyed, I just don't see anything about it that would cause me to want to play it. If you do, great!

Like I said, time will tell. But the marketing said the same thing about 4e and we saw how that turned out. I had hoped Wizards would try to create something new and different and creative and innovative.

Enjoy your gaming!


I like the disclaimer. Lots of good names in the credits, too.

[No, I haven't gotten very far into it yet. :-)]

Sovereign Court

Some of the stuff seem sort of interesting, but most of it is frankly...completely unimpressive. Definetly not worth committing the resources needed. I might play it a few times with friends as one shots, but that's it.

Dark Archive

There's some things I like (fixed spell value vs. bonus stacking ex: Mage Armor - fixed AC 13 + Dex mod) and some things I dislike intensely (plus 2 on a stat at 4th level and every 4 levels). Seems like too much of a mesh between 3rd and 4th ed (neither one is high on my list of good games) TBH. Maybe I'll make up some sample characters - reading a module or looking at the monster stats may also sway me.

IDK at this point. Looks like I may just poach the good stuff for a modified version of 2nd ed AD&D.

It is interesting that they made enough changes so that it does not exactly follow the 0E or OSRIC game formats nor will it port over cleanly. I suspect this was done on purpose.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

It's interesting to see the reaction differences between those here and those at EN World. There are multiple threads at EN World filled with overwhelmingly positive reactions to the basic rules contents (with a handful of negative reactions) whereas here we have the opposite.

Dark Archive

Scott Betts wrote:
It's interesting to see the reaction differences between those here and those at EN World. There are multiple threads at EN World filled with overwhelmingly positive reactions to the basic rules contents (with a handful of negative reactions) whereas here we have the opposite.

Yeah, two different websites and forums.

So, your point?

Silver Crusade

5 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
Scott Betts wrote:
It's interesting to see the reaction differences between those here and those at EN World. There are multiple threads at EN World filled with overwhelmingly positive reactions to the basic rules contents (with a handful of negative reactions) whereas here we have the opposite.

Because EnWorld is where all the WotC fans went to after their own forums became borderline useless, while Paizo is the place where all the not-WotC fans went to after, you know after what.

So you're either surprised by something you shouldn't be surprised by or you are venting your frustration that there is some place in the multiverse where people aren't that big fans of whatever Mike Mearls does.

But trust me, if you want to see a place where people are *really* not positive about D&D NextNext, go to TGD. Heck, their current 5E thread is called "Zero Buzz on 5E...Is It Dead Out The Gate?". You'd love it ;-)

Sovereign Court RPG Superstar 2010 Top 16, 2011 Top 32

5 people marked this as a favorite.

ENWorld has been on the payroll of WotC in the past and remains its biggest cheerleader. If you find it interesting that the bigger cheerleader's website and the website of its rival system are different, then yours must be a life filled with wonder.

Dark Archive

Well, in all fairness there is a huge subsection of the Next forum on ENWorld that covers the controversial "Damage on a Miss" mechanic and efforts to have it removed from the final basic workup.

I am glad they took out of 5e.

Dark Archive

I imagine most people on this messageboard would be highly critical of 5E considering they mostly play Pathfinder.

5E isn't a revolutionary game, telling from the Basic Rules. I will say I'd be happy to hand this (read as 'send this') to someone new to RPGs and be confident that can make pretty good use of things quickly. Compared to say, the PF SRD. 3.5 (and in some ways 4E) and PF were bloated rule systems with too much to learn in order to play the game by the rules.

I prefer more flexible systems like Swords & Wizardry, but 5E is a degree less convoluted than 3.x/PF.

I think WotC is doing the smart thing is making a game that is still "DnD" at it's heart (as opposed to 4E, IMO) but is still a little more complicated than the barebones old school games. It doesn't need to be a revolutionary game that blows PF fans away. It needs to be a solid RPG that doesn't have as much sunk time-cost learning. It will live off the brand name to start, and maybe we'll see it grow.

This of course could go out the window with the release of the PHB/MM/DMG and the expansive of game options.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

It looks too interesting not to try (and after all, I cut my teeth on Red Box set and naked succubi), but probably not a killer app. It's... different. I doubt it will split many tables; to me, it's more of an "in addition to" than a convincing replacement. Also, in the long run, it matters a lot how they deal with OGL issues.


8 people marked this as a favorite.

I read through the document and felt, well, neutral.

It looks like a good game.

If someone invited me to play, I'd probably play, but there was no "wow" factor for me.

I do want to give major kudos to the designers and those responsible for the roll-out, though. I thought the way they've handled the game and the roll-out has been fantastic. Such a contrast to when they rolled out 4E and offended so many.

So, good job, WotC!


1 person marked this as a favorite.
DaveMage wrote:


I read through the document and felt, well, neutral.

It looks like a good game.

If someone invited me to play, I'd probably play, but there was no "wow" factor for me.

My first feeling as well.

My second feeling was that this is a great improvement... Over AD&D 1st/2nd edition...


Auxmaulous wrote:

Yeah, two different websites and forums.

So, your point?

I guess if two things are different there's no point in exploring what those differences are or why they exist! How silly of me!


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Gorbacz wrote:
Because EnWorld is where all the WotC fans went to after their own forums became borderline useless, while Paizo is the place where all the not-WotC fans went to after, you know after what.

Do you think EN World is just full of 4e fans, or something? Because that's the sort of thing I'd expect to hear from someone who doesn't spend any significant amount of time on EN World.

EDIT: Since this appears to be a common misconception (or piece of convenient mythology, take your pick) around here, let's back it up with some actual data. ENWorld has a shared D&D and Pathfinder sub-forum. At the moment, its first page is almost filled with 5e stuff, which makes sense given that the game was released today and has seen a huge amount of build-up over the last couple of months. But if you check the Wayback Machine from a year ago, you'll find 11 first page threads tagged as Pathfinder and 11 first page threads tagged as 4e and 5e combined (3 on 4e, 8 on 5e). In fact, if you add the threads tagged with 3e/3.5e, it becomes clear that the discussion on ENWorld has (in the past) actually tended to favor pre-4e D&D, at least in terms of breadth of topic (depth of topic/thread length is another matter, but often driven more by controversy and disagreement than anything else).

Quote:
So you're either surprised by something you shouldn't be surprised by or you are venting your frustration that there is some place in the multiverse where people aren't that big fans of whatever Mike Mearls does.

Or I think it's interesting that, despite both websites having significant Pathfinder-loving user bases, this one remains overwhelmingly negative and the other remains overwhelmingly positive.

But I'm sure it's much easier for you to pretend that possibility doesn't exist, Gorbacz.

Dark Archive

Scott Betts wrote:
Auxmaulous wrote:

Yeah, two different websites and forums.

So, your point?
I guess if two things are different there's no point in exploring what those differences are or why they exist! How silly of me!

Well no, you have an agenda (and I get that) I just wanted you to come clean with the point you were trying to make.


James Martin wrote:
ENWorld has been on the payroll of WotC in the past

You're going to have to elaborate on that one.


Auxmaulous wrote:
Scott Betts wrote:
Auxmaulous wrote:

Yeah, two different websites and forums.

So, your point?
I guess if two things are different there's no point in exploring what those differences are or why they exist! How silly of me!
Well no, you have an agenda (and I get that) I just wanted you to come clean with the point you were trying to make.

I think my real question is why the Pathfinder fans here seem overwhelmingly disappointed in 5e, while the Pathfinder fans at ENWorld seem overwhelmingly pleased with it. Obviously merely liking Pathfinder isn't the differentiating factor, so I'm looking for thoughts on what that factor might actually be.


Pathfinder Companion, Maps Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber
Scott Betts wrote:
Auxmaulous wrote:
Scott Betts wrote:
Auxmaulous wrote:

Yeah, two different websites and forums.

So, your point?
I guess if two things are different there's no point in exploring what those differences are or why they exist! How silly of me!
Well no, you have an agenda (and I get that) I just wanted you to come clean with the point you were trying to make.
I think my real question is why the Pathfinder fans here seem overwhelmingly disappointed in 5e, while the Pathfinder fans at ENWorld seem overwhelmingly pleased with it. Obviously merely liking Pathfinder isn't the differentiating factor, so I'm looking for thoughts on what that factor might actually be.

I think a major aspect is a large part of this community is happy with what they are playing, so D&D Next would have to be really impressive for most of us to want to switch. I know I am just meh with the new edition.


Overwhelmingly meh, it seems, not negative.

Is meh negative? I thought it was indifference or apathy...


Kryzbyn wrote:

Overwhelmingly meh, it seems, not negative.

Is meh negative? I thought it was indifference or apathy...

"Disappointed" is probably a more accurate way to describe it.

Sovereign Court

3 people marked this as a favorite.
Scott Betts wrote:
Auxmaulous wrote:
Scott Betts wrote:
Auxmaulous wrote:

Yeah, two different websites and forums.

So, your point?
I guess if two things are different there's no point in exploring what those differences are or why they exist! How silly of me!
Well no, you have an agenda (and I get that) I just wanted you to come clean with the point you were trying to make.
I think my real question is why the Pathfinder fans here seem overwhelmingly disappointed in 5e, while the Pathfinder fans at ENWorld seem overwhelmingly pleased with it. Obviously merely liking Pathfinder isn't the differentiating factor, so I'm looking for thoughts on what that factor might actually be.

I dont think the reactions here are that negative. If anything they are rather lukewarm or neutral. It makes sense to me that PF fans are not that excited about a new D&D. People seem to be pretty content with 3E/PF and the huge libraries they built and 5E is not enticing enough to lure PF fans in; yet.

Enworld in my experience tends to be a rather positive place which is why I enjoy reading there. Discussions tend to be more constructive even between folks with differing opinions. It was a positive place during 4E launch too. Now RPG net seems much more negative about 5e then just about anywhere else. WOTC forums? That place is like a shelled out battlefield from the E.war.


Pan wrote:
I dont think the reactions here are that negative. If anything they are rather lukewarm or neutral. It makes sense to me that PF fans are not that excited about a new D&D. People seem to be pretty content with 3E/PF and the huge libraries they built and 5E is not enticing enough to lure PF fans in; yet.

You may be right about the reactions being lukewarm, but my question revolves around why Pathfinder fans on one forum tend to have a [lukewarm/disappointed/negative/whatever] reaction to 5e's release, while Pathfinder fans on the other tend to have a positive reaction to it.

Both groups are Pathfinder fans, so why the tendency to react differently?

Quote:
Enworld in my experience tends to be a rather positive place which is why I enjoy reading there. Discussions tend to be more constructive even between folks with differing opinions.

That's been my experience as well, and probably has something to do with it.


I'll give the PDF a look over the weekend, but I don't feel that there's alot of incentive for me to "switch over". There's a wealth of content available freely online under the 3.5/Pathfinder system, and I've only scratched the service of the possibilities of that system in play and GMing. I'll probably watch and wait to see how 5E's release unfolds over the next year or so, and how Wizards handles content distribution, before making any judgement.


Is this the time to flag a number of posts for personal bashing already?

Sovereign Court

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Scott Betts wrote:
Pan wrote:
I dont think the reactions here are that negative. If anything they are rather lukewarm or neutral. It makes sense to me that PF fans are not that excited about a new D&D. People seem to be pretty content with 3E/PF and the huge libraries they built and 5E is not enticing enough to lure PF fans in; yet.

You may be right about the reactions being lukewarm, but my question revolves around why Pathfinder fans on one forum tend to have a [lukewarm/disappointed/negative/whatever] reaction to 5e's release, while Pathfinder fans on the other tend to have a positive reaction to it.

Both groups are Pathfinder fans, so why the tendency to react differently?

Quote:
Enworld in my experience tends to be a rather positive place which is why I enjoy reading there. Discussions tend to be more constructive even between folks with differing opinions.
That's been my experience as well, and probably has something to do with it.

Oh my bad. Yeah my guess is the folks who frequent here are pretty happy and lean towards being one system PF fans. PF fans on enworld are probably a little more open to multiple systems and switching things up.


Gorbacz wrote:
That's still a tiny fraction of what's being discussed compared to here.

Again, unsurprising given that this is the official forum for it. The point I'm making is that ENWorld is actually remarkably non-partisan with respect to editions of the game, and is just as full of Pathfinder threads as it is of 4e+ threads. It's not the stronghold of WotC-lovers that you want to (for some reason) make it out to be.

Paizo Employee Chief Technical Officer

20 people marked this as a favorite.

We don't need another edition war. We didn't need the previous one.

Stop worrying about what other people like and dislike, and keep liking what you like.


Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber

Read the rules and *shrugs*. It's okay I guess. Again I wont be investing in / spending any of my money on D&D 5E / NEXT or whatever it's called.

It will be the first edition since Red Box that I wont be buying the core rules. I dont miss NOT playing D&D. I though that i would but I dont. W

As for EnWorld, i've been a part of those boards since before their server issues. Since 2002 I think and ENWorld has been pretty overwhelmingly WOTC positive. The only cracks in the WOTC loving facade over there was at the end of the 3.5 days where the frustration of the posters there made them long for a new and different edition like 4E.

Support for 4E was pretty strong over there and honestly before the NEXT announcement it still was. The tags for Pathfinder over there are a pretty recent thing maybe the last 2 years or so. Before that? It was pretty much 4E all day over there.


Auxmaulous wrote:
Your post implies that there is something wrong with people who post here vs. ENworld,

Except it doesn't, and that's not at all what I'm trying to show. I've already explained what I think is the case. There's no need for you to imagine what my motives are, so why do you continue to do so?

Quote:
that our dislike or criticism of 5e is rooted in fandom or irrationality - as a blanket statement about these forums when that is patently false.

Again, also untrue. I don't even have an opinion on 5e; I didn't do any real playtesting with it, and I haven't read through the Basic PDF yet; I'm too busy with 4e and Pathfinder to dive into it just yet. So this isn't me trying to mount a defense of 5e, which I've never played. I'm just wondering at differences and why they exist. I see you doing a lot of protesting of that observation and very little attempting to explain why that observation holds true.

Quote:
Instead of making sweeping generalizations and assuming you are smarter than everyone else,

Oh, look. A personal attack. I'm sure that was "just an observation" though.

Quote:
why don't you ask individuals why they may or may not like the system or why they may or may not change?

Because I'm not interested in why they like or don't like the system. Plenty of people are telling us what they like or don't like, unprompted. I'm interested in why their reactions appear to be in contrast to reactions elsewhere. This isn't a tough concept to wrap one's head around.

Paizo Employee Chief Technical Officer

3 people marked this as a favorite.
Vic Wertz wrote:

We don't need another edition war. We didn't need the previous one.

Stop worrying about what other people like and dislike, and keep liking what you like.

Actually, let me go one further: Everyone please leave your opinions of other people's opinions out of the discussion. That way, we can have a discussion. Otherwise, we can have a locked thread.

1 to 50 of 190 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Gamer Life / Gaming / D&D / 4th Edition / Basic D&D PDF is available All Messageboards