5 out of 5 rating for D&D 5th Edition Player's Handbook

[silverwhisper]

i have played every TSR/WOTC edition of D&D and am running a 4e campaign. no single edition to me has ever nailed it though. that is, not until now. my copy arrived saturday. if you're interested in this subject but haven't already gotten a copy for yourself, you've probably already read a few reviews. with that in mind, here's my own review.

production values excellent. WOTC spared no expense with the full-color format for every page and sprung for a lot of illustrations. i'm not crazy about the gnome illustrations--sorry origen--but most of the art is excellent. one thing i particularly enjoy about the art is that much of it is inclusive and illustrates examples that are not the typical or expected. the barbarian class art, for example, isn't the snarling, brutal savage most of us think of when we think of a D&D barbarian. indeed, it's much more in keeping with the 4e thaneborn barbarian build.

it's also pretty hefty and beyond simple chargen also includes a good discussion of the combat engine and exploration phase of play. unlike in 4e, magic items aren't included--and potions of healing are apparently non-magical, a welcome change, considering how common these things are. also, holy water is back and it's nice to see again.

rules 3.x-style multiclassing is back--but without penalizing caster level! mearls appears to have raided monte cook's arcana unearthed/evolved for a few ideas on fiddling with spell slots for casters. speaking of AU/AE, the paladin is more reminiscent of that game's champion, which is nice to see here. paladins and rangers are partial casters again, but now getting 5 spell levels. warlocks are weird, only getting 5 levels but through class features getting access to higher-level spells & spell slots (see comment above re: AU/AE). caster level, the bane of 3.x MCing, has been addressed properly, IMHO.

much has been written about the advantage/disadvantage mechanic. for the uninitiated: both revolve around rolling 2d20 and picking a result: advantage = pick better, disadvantage = pick worse. avoid disadvantage: it's terrible. that's kinda the point.

some spells have attack rolls, esp damaging cantrips. those are smart and were in the playtest--and i like their inclusion from 4e.

ringmail has made it into D&D in a "big 3" book, and it's nice to see here as a heavy armor. well, sorta: it kinda sucks as the entry-level cheapo heavy armor. speaking of armor, glad to see they fixed medium & heavy armor from the playtest. feats are actually meaningful in this game. and for those who frequented charop forums, no, there are no feat taxes in 5e.

battlemaps are indeed entirely optional in the core game as presented in the PHB. if you prefer a more tactical game, with more complex encounters, DMG is supposed to offer support for that. hurray, no more 4+ hr fights! the spell list is streamlined through the removal of different "levels" of what was essentially the same spell. example: the cure wounds spell, which a caster can cast as a higher level spell, thereby gaining more powerful results. much better than having light, moderate, severe and critical. combat has been streamlined a lot thanks to adv/disad and having only 2 action types (attack and bonus). i

love the addition of bonds, things that tie you to a person, place or idea. including ideals and weaknesses are all good tools to help someone figure out what their character is like.

in closing the departure from requiring a battlemap means fights won't take forever. that alone makes this a good game. but with everything else? i'm sold and will want to migrate my 4e game to this.

Do you recommend this product?: Yes

Good points?: fantastic physical qualities; excellent synthesis of what's come before

Bad points?: bulk of optional rules promised appear to have been delayed for the DMG

 

[Hand of Evil]

Don't think I would go a 5, maybe a 4 at most maybe a 3 after the shine wears off. Reasons for me, nothing new, just the picks of the litter of all that came before used to build this edition.

 

[Jhaelen]

the spell list is streamlined through the removal of different "levels" of what was essentially the same spell.

That's a change I've been expecting since AD&D 1e. Nice to see they finally caught up to my design ideas
However, it still doesn't go far enough for my taste. There's still hundreds of spells, many of which are very similar. Better solutions have existed for decades:
- Runequest with it's templated spells
- Ars Magica with it's spell creation rules
- Mage oWoD with it's spontaneous spellcasting rules

But it's still more manageable than in any other previous edition (excepting 4e).

 

[vivsavage]

With the caveat that I haven't played it, I'm inclined to agree with your sentiments. This is the first edition of D&D of any stripe that feels like they really nailed it. I'm really excited for the DMG and its optional rules.

 

[silverwhisper]

hi folks, thanks for reading! i wanted to address a few points raised.

hand of evil quoth:
don't think i would go a 5, maybe a 4 at most maybe a 3 after the shine wears off. reasons for me, nothing new, just the picks of the litter of all that came before used to build this edition.

considering that they did a lot that was new in 4e but a significant portion of the fanbase ran screaming for pathfinder--and that the playtest was explicitly an exercise in building an edition with the broadest possible appeal, i'm not sure that criticism is a fair one. if there was one lesson the 4e experience appears to have taught wizards, it's that the game's fans don't actually want such radical changes. for that reason, i don't think they should be criticized for actually listening when fans aren't happy with their product.

jhaelan quoth:
that's a change i've been expecting since AD&D 1e. nice to see they finally caught up to my design ideas

however, it still doesn't go far enough for my taste. there's still hundreds of spells, many of which are very similar.

you won't be thrilled by the fact that mass and single versions of spells still aren't listed together then, either, i suppose?

i think that the once the decision was made to go with the vancian system and to recapture the feel of earlier editions, they really didn't have much choice. after 4 decades, a lot of spells have become favorites.

you know, i think that it would be pretty interesting for WOTC to release an alternate magic system book next year. i'd certainly buy it, considering my personal distaste for vancian.

 

[Connorsrpg]

I too noticed the Arcana Unearthed similarities, and for which I am glad - that was my favourite 3E/d20 book.

There are bits of Oathsworn in the monk, Witches in the Warlock, and those you mentioned.

The flexible spell system is the best adaptation, though I wish they went one step further and gave all spells a keyword to build spell lists from. That way it would be much easier to track spells when the splats arrive, esp for the divine casters that know all spells on their lists?!

 

[Jhaelen]

you won't be thrilled by the fact that mass and single versions of spells still aren't listed together then, either, i suppose?

Got it in one!

 

[silverwhisper]

connorsrpg quoth:
i too noticed the arcana unearthed similarities, and for which i am glad - that was my favourite 3E/d20 book.

it was a good one all right, although i was also partial to iron heroes. considering that was mearls too, i guess my overall enjoyment of 5e isn't too surprising, huh?

connorsrpg quoth:
there are bits of oathsworn in the monk, witches in the Warlock, and those you mentioned.

i was rather curious to see if there was something akashic-like.

connorsrpg quoth:
the flexible spell system is the best adaptation, though i wish they went one step further and gave all spells a keyword to build spell lists from. that way it would be much easier to track spells when the splats arrive, esp for the divine casters that know all spells on their lists?

it would have been convenient, but i guess keywords are a bit too 3e for the 5e design team's tastes?