What does everyone thing. It's got me Hyped!
Very cool, thanks for sharing.
Very interesting. Thanks for the link.
awesome article! Thanks.
Appendix E: Inspirational Reading
That's awesome to have back in the rulebook.
I can't wait until my PHB arrives. 
if backgrounds are one page each that could mean 18 backgrounds from pahe 125 to page 143.
Azzy1974 wrote:
8 pages of "Creature Statistics" ? Do we know what that is?
BoldItalic wrote:
BoldItalic wrote:
thespaceinvader wrote:
Azzy1974 wrote:
I can't wait for people to look at the table of contents and start nitpicking/complaining about the Exact Number Of Pages that a particular class has. It'll be super.
Coming from 3e/PF... very interesting that sorcerers have the same spell progress. Now I'm curious as to what makes them different! 
spelley wrote:
Kinda looks like a wizard subclass.
thespaceinvader wrote:
SeanCaruso wrote:
Sorcerer looks extremely similar to the Wizard, as it did in 3.5. Not sure why both classes need to exist as core options. Seems like Wizard, Sorcerer, and Warlock could have all been Subclasses of a Magic User or whatnot.
Looks like 161 pages of Character Creation, which is just a ridiculous amount of material for a new player to read through before they can make a character and play the game.
Most importantly, it looks like the Player's Handbook does not contain everything you need to actually play 5E D&D.
1 total page of rules and exploration on "Social Interactions" when Roleplaying is supposed to be a major pillar of the game? Nothing that explains how to DM, nothing that explains how to build a game world, nothing that explains how to build an adventure, 8 pages of "creature statistics" which probably doen't include any monsters, nothing on the Exploration pillar of the game, etc. So basically someone has to spend around $150 (PHB, Monster Manual, DMG) in order to play 5E, or they can spend $20 on the Starter Set which is single, low level, limited choice, on rails adventure module.
And WotC wonders why it has trouble attracting new players?
Person_Man wrote:
ChrisCarlson wrote:
No, the Player's Handbook is not Everything You Need To Play D&D.
Basic D&D, the free PDF, is Everything You Need To Play D&D - or rather, it will be on the day the PHB launches, because that's when it gets the DM advice and monsters.
The Player's Handbook is for players. More options for races and classes and character-building. Instructions on how to play the game.
The Dungeon Master's Guide will be the superset of the DMing advice that is going to be added to Basic - so there will be a free PDF with Exploration rules and How To Build An Adventure, and then more details/examples in the DMG, along with options for how to hack your game.
And then the Monster Manual has the monsters in Basic, plus who knows how many other things, plus Legendary Monster rules.
That's how it was stated to be playing out, that's how it's playing out, give it a month.
spelley wrote:
BoldItalic wrote:
ChrisCarlson wrote:
spelley wrote:
Person_Man wrote:
Okay then. You know the most notable thing that struck me when looking over this?
No mention of dragonborn. You know, the guys who, you know, are basically small dragons? They talk about drops of dragonblood in humans and other races, but its as if the ones who are closest get overlooked?
I find it very curious.
BoldItalic wrote:
Mephi1234 wrote:
BoldItalic wrote:
Here's the reason the Fighter is 5 pages.
Under fighter class heading in special abilities it says: The Fighter is a great warrior who uses his exceptiional abilities in combat to destroy his foes with wonderous feats of martial skill. As a fighter you may- attack.You may attack, then attack or attack once you attack, or attack after you attack, you may use your weapon to atttack, and use action surge to attack again, after you use your bonus action to attack with your secondary light weapon, Don't forget you can move and attack, or attack and move, you may also move before and after you attack. Later you get to attack more, once your reach level 5 you may attack and attack, and later atttack, attack, attack, and finally when you reach high level you may attack,attack, atttack, attack, attack. Don't forget to aquire magic items that allow you to increase your rate of attack. 
Hitdice wrote:
Brightmantle wrote:
BoldItalic wrote:
"So ... there's nothing about attacking?"
I think that's in the DMG, in the "Options for characters" chapter. It's called "The Attacker: A variant Fighter that attacks."
DocSun wrote:
DemoMonkey wrote:
Fallen_Star_02 wrote:
DemoMonkey wrote:
Person_Man wrote:
Page 312 = B62
nostalgia
76 pages just for classes... yeah, give me a PDF, I'm not going to deal with that organizational cluster flip. Having a description of something 12 times, once for each class, just to fluff up page count, is more than a bit annoying. Having sub-classes bloat every class like that was a bad idea in every possible way, even all the way down to the presentation.
As for the sorc. Can't tell much from just the table, but it looks like the class really comes down to 3 things making it unique, font of magic, metamagic and restoration. It also has sub-classes. It could easily have just been a wizard sub class. And tada, a quarter page for the spells per level, exactly like druid, cleric, wizard, bard and probably warlock.
Looks like a sorcerer gets 3 first level spells known, 2 spells for spell levels 2-5, and a single spell known for spell levels 6-9. In contrast, the wizard knows at least 4 of all spell levels, and can learn all of them.
One can only hope that the sorcerous origins will grant a bevy of spells known. Even if they do, there will no doubt exist one origin that is "best" (contains the most broadly useful spells on its list). I fear that, like with 3E, the sorcerer will be like a wizard only suckier. 
More pages devoted to Spell Descriptions than the entirety of classes? Yeah, hopes for non-boring martial characters just hit the wall.
ChrisCarlson wrote:
"More pages devoted to Spell Descriptions than the entirety of classes? Yeah, hopes for non-boring martial characters just hit the wall.'
That kind of depends on what proportion of D&D's existence you think martial characters were boring in.
If you think "none" , then everything is fine.
If you think "75%" then yeah, sad trombone for you.
If you think 100%, you are clearly a wizard.
Gunthar wrote:
There's a happy medium in there which apparently Mearls & Co. promissed, then ignored.
BoldItalic wrote:
dmgorgon wrote:
dmgorgon wrote:
dmgorgon wrote:
I find it very interesting that (so far) the Sorcerer seems to be the only full spellcaster that gets a Con save proficiency.
-Polaris
DemoMonkey wrote:
Gunthar wrote:
dmgorgon wrote:
dmgorgon wrote:
edwin_su wrote:
Person_Man wrote:
ChrisCarlson wrote:
edwin_su wrote:
dmgorgon wrote:
# of pages for weapons and shields: 4
# of pages for spell descriptions: 79
The number 4 can be plotted on the line y = 3x + 1
The number 79 can be plotted on the line y = 2(x^2) + x + 1
Proof positive that we have linear fighters and quadratic wizards!!! 5e is doooooomed!
vacthok wrote:
Hold on, isn't a spellbook supposed to be 100 pages?
Basic PDF, page 49 wrote:
dmgorgon wrote:
dmgorgon wrote:
spelley wrote:
DLfan wrote:
You know. I don't believe my brothers have ever played a non-martial character. Ever, in any edition. They had plenty of fun.
Now, Sorcerer. Not a lot of versatility, which is the Wizard's hat, but there's that quiet little Sorcery Points column that promises to be interesting...
...unfortunately, the preview stopped one page early. Alas!
Azzy1974 wrote:
DemoMonkey wrote:
Marandahir wrote:
DLfan wrote:
ChrisCarlson wrote:
BoldItalic wrote:
Only 6 pages for the Monk? That's not enough space to cover the Pacifist sub-class properly! :p
How does a pacifist monk even work? I can get a fighter - grapples and disarms and stuff. I get casters with charms and hold persons. But, pacificist monk works... how?
Mephi1234 wrote:
Ashrym wrote:
Marandahir wrote:
ChrisCarlson wrote:
Rastapopoulos wrote:
Rastapopoulos wrote:
Doesn't look like there's any rules modules in the book. It really is just Basic with more races, classes, subclasses, and spells.
And looks like there's only a handful of extra backgrounds. Nine or ten maybe,
Oh well, knowing what to expect will mean I'll less disappointed by potential absences and happy with what I'm getting.
Am I the only one the sees people complain about how much page count is dedicated to one thing or the other meaning that one thing is "cool" and the other thing is "shafted" and wants to scream "Some things take longer to explain, but length of explanation does not correlate to how much fun something is." ?
I mean, this MS Excel how-to book is like 4 times the pages of the Player's Handbook... does that mean Excel is more fun than playing D&D?
Infuriatingly stupid argument.
Note: I realize that most of you folks are joking around, and I thank you for that... but to those seriously flipping their wigs, I dedicate this post.
The_Jester wrote:
seti wrote:
The_Jester wrote:
AaronOfBarbaria wrote:
Ashrym wrote:
Finally the table of contents. How many "is ___ gonna be in it?" questions could they have avoided if they revealed this on day one?
And three pages for "Between Adventures," maybe some more in depth downtime systems.
Marandahir wrote:
DLfan wrote:
Also, I REALLY hope there's a section explaining mechanics for traits, flaws, bonds, and ideals in social situations. That was missing from Basic and from the leaked alpha PHB (which, granted, didn't even have backgrounds in it). If not I know it'll be in the DMG, but it would suck to wait.
ClockworkNecktie wrote:
AaronOfBarbaria wrote:
ClockworkNecktie wrote:
AaronOfBarbaria wrote:
Mephi1234 wrote:
ClockworkNecktie wrote:
Mephi1234 wrote:
BoldItalic wrote:
I'm more worried that clerics get only 8 pages! There can't be many domain ideas in such a brief page count. Of course that does leave plenty for a Divine Power book.
BoldItalic wrote:
ClockworkNecktie wrote:
One thing i don't like about manuvers and spells so far.
Even though we can;t be sure at this point there is ont thing that irritates me a bit.
Spells have a seperate section, but manuvers do not.
That manuvers don't have a section like spells do does sugest a few things.
3 of the reasons mentioned during the playtest for spells being a seperate section where :
1) some spells are used by multiple classes and now they only have to be in the book once instead of being listed with each class that has acces to them. This makes it easyer for classes and subclasses that are created later to refer to the same spell recources.
2) some feats give you access to spells.
4) It makes it easyer to expand the number of spells if they are in a seperate section.
so tmanuvers not being in a seperate section could sugest 3 things.
1) there is only 1 subclass with access to manuvers, and no intent to have other classes/subclasses have access to the same manuver system at some point.
2) there will be no feats to get access to these manuvers.
3) There is no intent to expand on the number of manuvers.
Personaly i had hoped to see a seperate manuver section.
And barbarian, fighter, rogue and monk each have a subclass that used the system. ( with seperate manuver lists to chose from just like caster classes have diferent spell lists)
To my understanding, Maneuvers are now the province of ONLY the Battlemaster Fighter, who's flavoured somewhat like a Samurai, Master of War sort of Strategist, with various maneuvers that allow commanding the other party members a la Warlord, parrying and riposting, muddling with the enemy's resolve, adding affects to attacks, etc. What is the Battlemaster Fighter? It's someone trained to absolute master of combat. Paladins might be fighters but they're not FIGHTERs. Barbarians and Rangers, Rogues and Monks are similar. They have combat techniques, but these are FIGHTER maneuvers, and only a subset of Fighter to boot. It's not a shared set of abilities.
edwin_su wrote:
Marandahir wrote:
DLfan wrote:
Mephi1234 wrote:
Marandahir wrote:
Cerius wrote:
Person_Man wrote: