No, only pregenerated info. Free basic has five or so different kinds of fighters, but only one rogue.Kenjitsuka said:Hi, quick question: does it contain powers/abilities (-choices) for building Rogues and Fighters?
BASIC only has a ton of spells...
The basic rules have a very short list of spells, compared to previous editions. That being said, judging from the free module that Frog God Games put out to do its part of OHMYGERD ITS THE GREATEST GAME EVAR!!!!1!!!!, all you need is about 3 gaming sessions and you'll have enough XP to be 20th level [/slight sarcasm]Kenjitsuka said:Hi, quick question: does it contain powers/abilities (-choices) for building Rogues and Fighters?
BASIC only has a ton of spells...
Thanks for the info, JonB!JonB said:No, only pregenerated info. Free basic has five or so different kinds of fighters, but only one rogue.Kenjitsuka said:Hi, quick question: does it contain powers/abilities (-choices) for building Rogues and Fighters?
BASIC only has a ton of spells...
I agree that it's been quite a dissapointment so far, as for what I have seen personally.lordmanticore said:The basic rules have a very short list of spells, compared to previous editions. That being said, judging from the free module that Frog God Games put out to do its part of OHMYGERD ITS THE GREATEST GAME EVAR!!!!1!!!!, all you need is about 3 gaming sessions and you'll have enough XP to be 20th level [/slight sarcasm]
Typo here. I imagine that the period after "and" threw off the spell-check.Some notable D&D mainstays like charge actions are absent, and . A few rules variants - like "inspiration" bonuses for players with good roleplaying - are present, though set aside in sidebars.
Not sure I understand this complaint. The wizard is combat-focused, but discouraged from being involved in combat? Or do you mean RP conflicts? As well, wouldn't a recommendation to caution be useful if you wanted to have a new player take the wizard, warning them that they can't handle close combat like Gandalf? Vancian wizards (or whatever the Vancian-esque system of 5E is called) do stereotype towards being cautious and looking for advantage before committing themselves, but that's a mechanical constraint that players should always be aware of.The wizard is maybe the disappointing character, with combat-focused spells and a background that actively encourages the player in question to stay out of conflicts with others - fairly disappointing to see that stereotype in the class that everyone would tell you to give to the veteran player anyways. It would have been nice if I felt comfortable with a new player taking the Wizard.
What do you have against two fighters? They play very differently, they are different characters RP-wise... I've never had a problem with two or even three fighters in a 5 person game.Kalezian said:Plus only an idiot will allow two fighters into a game.
Couldnt you still just use the 5E rules but with an older FR setting?Oroboros said:Obviously Jonathan isn't a fan of the Forgotten Realms, but for me it's a bit more important, being D&D's flagship setting. WoTC has a lot to answer for with what they did to the Realms in 4e, so for me 5e and all this 'Sundering' stuff they are doing is a litmus test of sorts to see if it's salvageable and worth playing. For me at least, the offerings so far have fallen short of the mark-so the setting is a bit more important for me personally.
That should be "reins." You reign over a kingdom. You control a horse with reins. The idiom "giving the reins to..." refers to letting someone else "drive the cart," so to speak.Giving the reigns over to the players fairly early on [...]"