4e / GSL PHB Book Layout - Good or No so Good

[Herremann the Wise]

Hello Everyone,

I was wondering what people's experiences have been with the 4e PHB rule book now that you've more than likely used it extensively. Initially, I was happy with it but slightly underwhelmed in terms of layout and content.

Powers
The presentation of powers was a problem. While they could have been placed further into the book (like spells in 3.x), this would have left the classes decidedly bare-boned. Perhaps an index of powers similar to feats could have been used so that there was easier access to information? I don't think there is a solution to this and in the end, they have most likely made the best out of several difficult options. Could this have been successfully done any other way?

Clean Layout
The clean layout with loads of white space at first seemed quite good, but this is something that more and more, I have come to feel disappointed in (and perhaps irrationally so). I would love the book to be full of useful information with a lot more "busyness" than the clean lines delivered. Something where years later, I could sit down with a particular chapter and get some useful nuggets of information from. Something that has a little more longevity to its "readableness". In the end, the game was simplified and so was the presentation to match. Is it this that has drawn the "textbook" comments or something else?

[On a sidenote, could anyone recommend an rpg book that has done a really "busy" style of layout well?]

Magical Items in PHB
I suppose my other gripe at the time was that MIs (magical items) were in the PHB. This is something that I still think should never have happened. However, what gets put in to fill in the gap? More Classes or Class Builds?

PHB in Play
In the end, I would say during the game I rarely touch the PHB. Partly this is because we use power cards, but as well, I suppose the game is just simpler to run and play. Has this been your experience? I suppose in some ways, this is a huge positive.


So anyway, a year and a bit along, how do you judge what is effectively the flagship of the 4E D&D line? Has anything changed for you? Would you organise things or in hindsight do anything differently?

Best Regards
Herremann the Wise

PS: Anyone who starts any edition war nonsense is in trouble, so don't. This is discussion and opinion and generally it's not polite to tell people that their opinion is wrong (just different to yours which is obvious anyway and so does not need to be pointed out).
So yeah... be as critical as you like, but no impolite posts please.

[LostSoul]

It needs a Power index.

[fanboy2000]

I like it mostly because they got rid of those horrible brown lines. The power presentation could have looked less like "hey I'm a card game! Make your own cards!" but I've gotten over that.

On a side note, I love the art.

[Dannyalcatraz]

While its generally attractive in its own way, I didn't care much for the overall layout of the PHB.

I found myself having to flip back and forth to find definitions of some terms or symbology. Usually, a lot of the idiosyncrasies of a game's terminology are defined early on- either in a given chapter or in an intro to the book, or even in well-placed sidebars.

This isn't to say I often found myself confused- I wasn't- because I've played enough RPGs I could generally figure out what something meant by its context. When I wanted confirmation of what I had figured out, it was simply a chore.

But I shouldn't have to. I can't say for sure, but I would imagine that this could be a barrier to the enjoyment of a gaming novice just picking it up without an experienced gamer around to pester.

I agree as well that the placement of powers would have been better had they been placed in their own chapter, much like feats, spells and powers from earlier editions. It made going through the class section a bit of a bother, especially if you wanted to skim through and compare non-power class features.

In addition, an index such as LostSoul mentioned would have been invaluable, especially if it noted how certain powers were variants of or built upon others, like the Feat trees of 3.X. Those were often quite handy when designing your PC.

[malraux]

If I were to lose my PHB, I'm not sure I'd bother to buy a replacement. I just don't use it. The compendium is better for looking up powers, magic items, rituals, etc (and even has all the errata). Power cards mean I don't ever need the class chapter in play. The DM Screen fills in the largest gaps. Occasionally we'll need something from the combat chapter, but that's every other session or so. But for that purpose, it is remarkably efficient.

[Mustrum_Ridcully]

The [W] should have been explained earlier.

Oh, I guess that's not layout. I don't know, there is not much that I would want to change or improve. What do you mean with "MIs"?, Herreman?

[Herremann the Wise]

Originally Posted by Mustrum_Ridcully

What do you mean with "MIs"?, Herreman?

Sorry, I should have spelled that out: Magical Items. Silly me taking the magic out of the MIs.
I'll edit the original.

Best Regards
Herremann the Wise

[Dannyalcatraz]

Originally Posted by Mustrum_Ridcully

The [W] should have been explained earlier.

Oh, I guess that's not layout.

Definitely-and it is layout. If you introduce symbols, you should let the reader know what it means...RAPIDLY!

I mean, take a look through a math book- any symbol or special term you'll encounter is defined within a page or 2. That fosters learning.

[Wepwawet]

The one thing I don't like about the 4E PHB is the font size. It's too big.
Text should be the same size as the other books, and then you could have more content.
I can't find any good reason they used such big text

[Mustrum_Ridcully]

Originally Posted by Herremann the Wise

Sorry, I should have spelled that out: Magical Items. Silly me taking the magic out of the MIs.
I'll edit the original.

Best Regards
Herremann the Wise

Than I definitely disagree, they can go in the PHB. In practice, the players will have the magic items and need to reference what they do. So either they take a look at the DMG, the holy book they shouldn't have to look at all, or you have to copy it out for them. Or you have to account everything what these magic items might do. A player never should have to reference the DMG to understand what his character can do.

Unless you are hiding all rules from the players that govern their actions and decisions. But that would make the PHB _very_ differently looking. It would be all explaining a setting and how to describe and roleplay your character. No rules at all.

[Dannyalcatraz]

Originally Posted by Wepwawet

I can't find any good reason they used such big text

The cynical MBA in me says its to inflate page count, and thus price of the product.

It is, however, unarguably easier on the eyes...especially of the older gamers. Considering that some of the people in the hobby are in their 60s, that's not a bad thing.

Its not quite a wash...I'd call it a marginal negative.

[Henry]

I still have to say, a year in -- the PHB reads like crap, but the utility of its design can't be beat. Coming from game books that used to read pleasurably, but were never laid out for use at the table, it does feel weird to me. However, it's not a bad thing.

The 4e PHB is laid out for ease of use better than any book I've seen for D&D yet. The powers being next to the classes, counterintuitive though that is from previous precedent, actually does make it easier to find stuff. The skills, feats, etc. all are easy to find and reference from my perspective.

Only thing I do feel negatively about as you say is the magic items - I still think for a game that encourages an older school style of "give magic items rather than making them", including MI's in the book was not a good move. Being in the equipment chapter, or right next to it, makes it even more a subconscious "entitlement."

But as far as power layout? In-game, I just can't find fault with the PHB's reference power.

[Mouseferatu]

Originally Posted by Henry

I still have to say, a year in -- the PHB reads like crap, but the utility of its design can't be beat. Coming from game books that used to read pleasurably, but were never laid out for use at the table, it does feel weird to me. However, it's not a bad thing.

My thoughts exactly. The 4E PHB is the very first PHB in, well, any edition that I felt was written, first and foremost, as a reference work.

This is an excellent thing, from a game-play standpoint. However, the fact that it's not an inspirational read--that the cool flavor and feel are found in other books--is also a detriment. I know more than one 3E fan who took a look at the PHB, thought it was boring on an initial skim, and didn't look any further. These aren't random folks on the net, I'm talking about people I know personally, who I truly believe would enjoy the new game, but were turned off by the flavorless PHB.

I'm not sure there's any better solution, and I'm not saying WotC made the wrong choice, just that there was definitely a trade-off for the ease of use.

[Plane Sailing]

In contrast to Henry, I find the utility of the design appalling. Every time someone attempts a grab or a bull rush or one of the other conditions or actions scattered through the combat chapter we spend ages paging backwards and forwards trying to find the right place.

Admittedly we rarely have to look up grab now because it has proved so useless that it is rarely attempted! (and FWIW we never had any problem with 3e grapple which seemed straightforward and understandable to us, so I'm guessing this is primarily a layout problem).

I hate having to look something up in the PHB at the table, because it always takes longer than expected. It is also the only RPG rules I possess which is too boring to sit down and just read through.

I would have liked better arranging of material, better index(!), smaller type face and a bunch of other changes to layout.

That's me.

Cheers

[Dannyalcatraz]

Originally Posted by Mouseferatu

My thoughts exactly. The 4E PHB is the very first PHB in, well, any edition that I felt was written, first and foremost, as a reference work.

Hmmm...I don't know what kind of reference materials you use, but that doesn't jibe with my perceptions.

Most of my reference material is extensively cross-referenced, has nice glossaries, indexes and appendices. As mentioned before, they define key terms & symbols before, contemporaneously or immediately after using them. Material referenced from outside sources gets a parenthetical or footnote with a page listing for ease of location. Sometimes, even stuff within the book located in other chapters gets similar treatment. Things that are different get their own chapters or subsections.

No...I don't see the PHB as a reference book.

[Mouseferatu]

Those would, indeed, make for a better reference book. No argument there. But I don't their presence defines a reference book. The PHB, while it has its flaws, is clearly (at least to me) set up primarily for quick use in looking up specific details, and less for teaching the game via a front-to-back read-through.

[delericho]

It's not great. My major issues are that there is too much whitespace, "The Wall" of all the powers is really daunting, and the powers themselves are an ugly mess of colour.

Still, it does have some good features. Moving the magic items to the PHB is a good thing (if the assumption is that players choose the items for their PCs, rather than the AD&D model where the DM was the primary arbiter in that area). Also, grouping the powers by class, and keeping them with the class descriptions is probably an overall plus (despite being the major contributor to "The Wall").

So I'm torn - it really needs some work, but at the same time it's not immediately clear how to perfect it.

Originally Posted by LostSoul

It needs a Power index.

This would be a massive help.

[Dannyalcatraz]

Those would, indeed, make for a better reference book. No argument there. But I don't their presence defines a reference book.

Fair enough.

But IMHO, even without making the PHB the ne plus ultra of reference books, it has discernible room for improvement just to get it to the level of some previous editions.

To me, dividing the PHB into distinct chapters for (in no particular order) races, skills, feats, classes, combat, equipment, magic items and powers/spells, with a nice glossary & index would have been better. That's more or less what previous editions (and many other games, FWIW) have done. If you don't care for the way 3.X grouped them all alphabetically, with little lines about which class gets them at what level, you could just as easily adopt the 1Ed type layout, in which each class' powers get a separate subsection, organized by alphabetically & by level.

But the 4Ed book folds the powers & spells into the character class section- and it does so in a way that you can go for pages and pages without seeing anything BUT those powers & spells. As I've stated, its a mess to me and others, and I honestly feel it slows down the "research" process of looking through the classes and powers for something in particular.

I hate to say it, but it actually reminds me of the way Palladium lays out RIFTS and other Palladium system game products.

In addition, key terms & symbols are defined dozens of pages away from their initial use. That's sloppy. In 3.X, you'd often get a definition within a paragraph or 2, or a sidebar. I found very little confusion of that kind in 1Ed or 2Ed.

(Yes, I know that there are exceptions- some quite egregious- and I've commented on those elsewhere.)

[Mouseferatu]

Originally Posted by Dannyalcatraz

But the 4Ed book folds the powers & spells into the character class section- and it does so in a way that you can go for pages and pages without seeing anything BUT those powers & spells. As I've stated, its a mess to me and others, and I honestly feel it slows down the "research" process of looking through the classes and powers for something in particular.

Huh. I had the opposite reaction. I like having the powers bundled in with the class descriptions. I've found that it makes them, for me, easier to find, since I know if I need anything on, say, the cleric, I turn to the cleric section and I'm done.

I'll agree with you that the Wall o' Powers is daunting, but I think that would've been the case even if they'd broken them out into their own chapter. And I don't actually find them much more daunting than the old "mondo chapter of spells" from prior editions. A little bit more, perhaps, but not much so--and only because all classes have them.

I'd definitely sign the petition for a power's index, though. And possibly an "important terms" glossary as well.

[Dannyalcatraz]

Originally Posted by Mouseferatu

Huh. I had the opposite reaction. I like having the powers bundled in with the class descriptions. I've found that it makes them, for me, easier to find, since I know if I need anything on, say, the cleric, I turn to the cleric section and I'm done.

I'll agree with you that the Wall o' Powers is daunting, but I think that would've been the case even if they'd broken them out into their own chapter. And I don't actually find them much more daunting than the old "mondo chapter of spells" from prior editions. A little bit more, perhaps, but not much so--and only because all classes have them.

But you could use that logic to justify putting class-specific equipment & magic items in their sub-chapters, too...and here we go down the slippy-slide!

For me, at least, if 4Ed had put in the basic Cleric class stuff, then a ref like "See Cleric Powers, pXXX," then gone onto describing the next class, I'd have been much happier.

Its not that the Wall is daunting, its just that its placement is inconvenient for quickly comparing the classes themselves. The 1Ed book? The description of classes is, what...18 pages? And that doubled by 3Ed, perhaps. But at the end of that, most people know the class roles and which one they want to play, even though they don't know what the spells some classes actually do.

But 4Ed? How many pages does each class take up, with basic description plus powers?

We'll just have to agree to disagree on this one.