5th Edition D&D Player's Handbook Review - A Greatest Hits Collection

[JonB]

5th Edition D&D Player's Handbook Review - A Greatest Hits Collection

We got our hands on the 5th Edition Dungeons & Dragons Player's Handbook and put it through the wringer to see how it measures up to previous installments.

Read Full Article

 

[Jimothy Sterling]

Drow are only boring if you make 'em boring. Next time I'm in NC, I'll give you a fuckin' drow.

 

[Jimothy Sterling]

Also, I've been digging the shit out of 5th Ed since we nabbed books early last week. My Eldritch Knight is a delight, tossing Chromatic Orbs at owlbears like a fucker!

 

[Midniqht]

So far, I'm loving the player's handbook and I'm looking forward to the monster manual and DMG. Having playtested the hell out of this edition, I'm glad to finally see it hit shelves and make waves. It's great fun.

 

[Kenjitsuka]

So, exactly what I saw in the Starter set and the BASIC rules...
Mostly the problems and all the sore thumbs sticking out you mentioned.

Sucks about Drow, but I am totally rolling up one with twin scimitars. I already did weeks ago in fact and played him too. But from what I read adding Guenhwyvar will only make it suck, as the animal companion for rangers is very weak and not fun.,,

 

[SnakeoilSage]

So what you're saying is that this doesn't innovate or really improve anything, it's just picks a few pieces from previous editions and more than a little from Pathfinder and calls it a day?

Because D&D need a year of fan feedback to do that.

And "Dragonborn" are still around. Because they were so unique and fun.

 

[RaikuFA]

I wanted to try and play it but there's no one to play it with. I also don't want to gamble and get a shitty DM again.

 

[Thunderous Cacophony]

And "Dragonborn" are still around. Because they were so unique and fun.

I personally like dragonborn. They're big lizard people who "(fluff-wise) fit somewhere between noble warriors and savage creatures, which is fun. And it beats having endless variations of elves. What's you're opposition to them?

OT:

You can tell it's the core rules because the section outlining the core rules is a short, sweet 27 pages. D&D hasn't been this straightforward in decades.

Somewhere quietly, you can hear the sound of "Taps" being played as the 4E Essentials are lowered into the ground, the last stake driven through their paperback hearts.

Personally, I think that Advantage and the loss of a grid are both failings. Dungeons and Dragons is, at it's core, about going into dungeons and fighting dragons. It can handle other stuff as it comes up in play, but backroom politics and the construction of a trade empire were never the system's strong suit. Stripping out some of the combat crunch makes the game feel sorta lackluster in the area where D&D always excelled, especially when other rules exist that remind you of the missing pieces, like cover and speed in feet. Narrative combat is a lot of fun, but that involves letting go of the stuff that D&D players still want.

 

[SnakeoilSage]

The confusing thing about Dragonborn is that there's also still the sorcerer prestige-class analogue for dragon-blooded where you gradually turn part dragon, which is what the dragonborn were intended to displace. So... yeah, count me puzzled, too, though they may have just wanted to make converting characters from other setting easier.

As for you assessment... you've more or less got it, but I'd argue that that's not a bad thing. It's essentially a shallower but significantly more new-player accessible version of Pathfinder; same general setting and mechanics, but you can take someone that's never actually played any tabletop game and get them rolling with a character and completely competent in about half an hour, and experienced players can build a character in minutes. The spellcasting system and advancement is much more streamlined to avoid weird outlier bonuses, and there's essentially no such thing as a perfect defense or offense, everything's got a miss/hit chance beyond nat 1/ nat 20 for most of the game.

So... yeah, if all of you have played before and you're doing an extended campaign, go with Pathfinder. If you have a new player, or just only want to play a few sessions and do some RPing, 5e is actually really good at letting you do generally what you build the character to do and roleplay without anything tripping you up from number-micromanagement.

The big weakness, honestly, is that advancement is straight-up broken. Just... do not use the xp system in 5e, flat-out. The challenge rating system's of dodgy value and the rewards are just completely nonsensical.

My opinion is if I wanted to mock a new player by insisting on playing "Little Lord Fauntleroy's First Big Boy RPG" I'll pushed D&D 5th Edition into his hands. If I want a new player to feel like he/she can actually pursue the wild ideas new players tend to have when they get into the game, I'll bring out Pathfinder and instead of waiting for him/her to get the rules, I'll support him in his/her endeavor to comprehend the mathematics. Because ultimately if you can't get your head around it, you won't have fun with Tabletop RPG's and no amount of "dumbing it down for the filthy casuals" is ever going to improve it for them. It will in fact only make it more infuriating for those of us devoted to learning the game and playing it frequently.

If you want to get people into D&D and other RPG's, create a tasty yet limited sampler. Not just starter kits or beginner's adventures, do something fun like make a proper HeroQuest-style board game that skims over the basic rules and introduces new gamers to things like dice roll mechanics, spells, and combat. Those kinds of games are fun for everyone, and if the new blood is enthralled with the idea of a more open and diverse version of the game, then you can introduce him to Pathfinder, because Pathfinder is just superior in my eyes and doesn't need whopping dollops of whipped cream artwork to disguise its lack of polish.

WotC isn't reinventing the wheel for this edition, and that I feel is a good thing, but it's rolling out an older wheel that they more or less pinched off someone else's truck. Some five years after Pathfinder was released and WotC brings us what? Basically, Pathfinder Basic. The "Bud Lite" of Pathfinder.

*Sigh* Sorry. I'm ranting like crazy here. I'm done now.

I personally like dragonborn. They're big lizard people who "(fluff-wise) fit somewhere between noble warriors and savage creatures, which is fun. And it beats having endless variations of elves. What's you're opposition to them?

My problem is they have no substance. They're so generic and shallow they don't even have a proper name for themselves, no real culture, no real personality out of the most vague of terms. It's like using "Action-Packed Thrill Ride!" to describe your movie.

 

[Optimystic]

"However, advantage speeds up the game so much that the lost granularity is a sacrifice players will be willing to make."

Not me. Advantage is just too simple and bland. I like it in addition to a stack of modifiers, but not replacing them entirely.

 

[NeutralDrow]

Huh. I could almost swear they're taking inspiration from the New WoD games with the Inspiration thing (I know 3.5 had something like that, but I've never seen it used for anything but maybe bonus XP). Either way, I'm looking forward to this.

Kinda wish there was a shot of a powers list or something, but either way, it looks pretty easy to read. I bought 3.5 splatbooks for reading material, because I'm a gargantuan nerd, but 4ed's books were almost invariably hard on my eyes (especially power lists, which even made 3.5's spell lists look dynamic).

Drow - that's Dark Elves - are back, for the record, and precisely as boring as ever. There's even a sidebar explaining how Drow are basically only an option because of Drizzt. Yawn.

Drow are only boring if you make 'em boring. Next time I'm in NC, I'll give you a fuckin' drow.

Fight the good fight, Mr. Sterling, sir!

 

[delroland]

You can't say that the new D&D is the best fantasy game on the market...

This line begs the question: what IS the best fantasy game on the market?

Edit: or did you mean to say, "You can't say conclusively..."?

 

[RaikuFA]

You can't say that the new D&D is the best fantasy game on the market...

This line begs the question: what IS the best fantasy game on the market?

Edit: or did you mean to say, "You can't say conclusively..."?

IMO, one with a single player campain.

 

[Shayman]

Forgive me if I missed it in the article, but is D&D 5th edition playable with three people? I've read it's recommended for four to six people.

 

[Seneschal]

You can't say that the new D&D is the best fantasy game on the market...

This line begs the question: what IS the best fantasy game on the market?

Edit: or did you mean to say, "You can't say conclusively..."?

First you need everyone in the tabletop RPG community to agree on what constitutes a "fantasy game". I GM an apocalyptically morose "fantasy game" modeled after Dark Souls in GURPS; I also play in a light-hearted JRPG-inspired "fantasy game" in (a heavily modified) Pathfinder - switching the systems around for those two campaigns would change their mood disastrously .

I think a "perfect fantasy game" is whatever fits your current campaign. At the moment, D&D 5e is nice, but I feel it fits only its own little sword&sorcery niche. It throws a bunch of its "iconic" spells, races and setting-assumptions at you, not letting you make up your own. "Pick a path at lvl3 to get spoonfed abilities throughout your career" isn't customization; I much prefer the way Pathfinder's rogues or magi do it - every so often, choose one out of ~20 thematic abilities. Don't lock us into character concepts early!

I'm probably asking the wrong things from 5e. I know it has to lean on brand-recognition heavily to compete with Paizo, and that means everything D&D-iconic gets pushed to the forefront. But in my book, Pathfinder trumps it in sheer breadth of content and options, and new-age narrative-focused systems like 13th Age and FATE are gulping up newcomers to the genre.

 

[Makabriel]

/snip

The problem with Pathfinder (and this is coming from one who has played it for a LONG time and still does) is that it tends to start breaking at 12th level or so. After that the GM has to fudge rules/dice/etc in order to keep an adventure as well as combat interesting. The power bloat makes the game way too hard to run at later levels.

 

[Thunderous Cacophony]

Forgive me if I missed it in the article, but is D&D 5th edition playable with three people? I've read it's recommended for four to six people.

Yes it is, to an extent. A lot of party-based tabletop games are based around having 4 main roles filled- The Fighter (hits stuff real good), The Cleric (the healer/technician) The Wizard (full of useful spells that makes tough challenges easy) and The Rogue (sneaks around and performs general skill-monkey work). You can have a three-person party, but the DM will need to keep that in mind while running the game, especially if you are using a premade adventure (having no Fighter or Cleric will make fights exponentially harder, no Wizard severely limits the optional routes the party can take, etc.)

If you want to run it with 3 people (along with a DM), it's totally doable, but I would recommend thinking about getting another player (or even trying a different system, like Apocalypse World).

I personally like dragonborn. They're big lizard people who "(fluff-wise) fit somewhere between noble warriors and savage creatures, which is fun. And it beats having endless variations of elves. What's you're opposition to them?

My problem is they have no substance. They're so generic and shallow they don't even have a proper name for themselves, no real culture, no real personality out of the most vague of terms. It's like using "Action-Packed Thrill Ride!" to describe your movie.

IIRC, they are given the same rough outlines as other races in terms of culture and personality. They are the remnants of an ancient empire that was shattered in the past, scattering most of the dragonborn. Their warlike tendencies and physical strength lend them to the rough work of adventuring, and many maintain old traditions and ideas of honour, pining for their lost dominion. Kinda generic, maybe, but no more so than "Dwarves are master smiths who live underground and love to drink", which is their basic description in most products. Personally, I've always thought of the dragonborn as Jews if the latter had stuck to martial traditions rather than the economic roles they found themselves in. (But on the other hand, "a bit like Jews" is about as common as fantasy tropes go).

And what's wrong with the name? It evokes a mental picture in even people who don't know what a dragonborn is, and it hints at a higher mythology, history, or legendary origin. It sounds like the translation of the name of a Aboriginal tribe, which is fitting given that the dragonborn would have spoken Draconic originally and the Common name would have been invented by humans/other non-dragonborn.

 

[Seneschal]

Forgive me if I missed it in the article, but is D&D 5th edition playable with three people? I've read it's recommended for four to six people.

It's playable with three people. Hell, you can DM it for just a single player. Just make sure you're doing it for the story, and don't expect a lot of synergistic tactical gameplay.

Technically we won't know what's the "recommended" party size until the Dungeon Master's Guide comes out; it will (well, should) have instructions on how to build challenging encounters, and adapting them for smaller or bigger parties.

 

[SnakeoilSage]

/snip

The problem with Pathfinder (and this is coming from one who has played it for a LONG time and still does) is that it tends to start breaking at 12th level or so. After that the GM has to fudge rules/dice/etc in order to keep an adventure as well as combat interesting. The power bloat makes the game way too hard to run at later levels.

I concede that point. I've rarely played a Pathfinder game past level 10 because of that broken progression. But D&D 5th has the same problem. Hell, if I needed more evidence that D&D just re-wrote the Pathfinder OGC, it would be the fact that both games have ridiculous level progression.

IIRC, they are given the same rough outlines as other races in terms of culture and personality. They are the remnants of an ancient empire that was shattered in the past, scattering most of the dragonborn. Their warlike tendencies and physical strength lend them to the rough work of adventuring, and many maintain old traditions and ideas of honour, pining for their lost dominion. Kinda generic, maybe, but no more so than "Dwarves are master smiths who live underground and love to drink", which is their basic description in most products. Personally, I've always thought of the dragonborn as Jews if the latter had stuck to martial traditions rather than the economic roles they found themselves in. (But on the other hand, "a bit like Jews" is about as common as fantasy tropes go).

And what's wrong with the name? It evokes a mental picture in even people who don't know what a dragonborn is, and it hints at a higher mythology, history, or legendary origin. It sounds like the translation of the name of a Aboriginal tribe, which is fitting given that the dragonborn would have spoken Draconic originally and the Common name would have been invented by humans/other non-dragonborn.

The other races might have a trope to them, but at least it's a more specific one than the Dragonborn get. "Master smiths who love to drink" is more telling than "remnants of an ancient empire that shattered," because that's literally the definition of 90% of the races you see in D&D. Being devoted warriors is nothing because there are three dozen human cultures like that and a handful of other races embrace it as well. Dwarves make fine warriors; half-orcs, goliaths, warforged (another annoyingly generic race), the list goes on and on. The attempts to make them distinct are skin-deep and vague at best.

Now if you came out and said Dragonborn like dancing or that the race has some of the finest singing voices, or that the race in general is older than the elves and remember a time when they were just tree-swinging folk craning their necks to behold the majesty of the Dragonborn's onion-domed kingdoms, you get a better impression of who they are as a people. What do they eat? What do they do when they're not being adventurers?

Why can't I see a Dragonborn being a farmer or a bartender or a prostitute? Because if I can't see them being anything but "adventurers" then I don't see them as a race worth playing. They're just numbers on a character sheet.

And "Dragonborn," a compound word like "warforged" and "thingobject" just reeks of creative emptiness. You could literally have made up any name for them. Daromar. There. A new name that sets them apart from something banal like "lizardfolk." I mean what is "dragonborn" anyways? Do dragons give birth to them? Even Skyrim addressed this issue, weaving "Dragonborn" as a concept into the idea that you are a mortal born with a dragon's soul, and you get a unique name, "Dovahkiin" to distinguish yourself. There's nothing distinguished about the Dragonborn. They might as well be the faction of another race. I give dwarves, elves, and halflings a bit of leeway because they're terms taking from a much older work of fantasy fiction, but the point is WotC had the chance to make something really unique and interesting and they just threw two words together on a Monday brainstorming sessions when everyone was hungover and didn't care what the result was.