D&D 5E The 5th edition PHB: Sorry but when it comes to functionality, it deserves a 'one star' rating.

77IM · Sep 19, 2014

No mention yet of the thoroughly excellent index?!?!?

brehobit · Sep 19, 2014

Spells were the most problematic. When I first saw them my initial thought was that this was an excuse to sell us on-line things or spell cards or something. I mean not having lists that include things like school and ritual or not is actively annoying.

I largely agree with the OP on skills and tools. It's not horrible (other than Stealth), but it does make things hard to find. And the tools are, in many cases, poorly defined.

I also found the races thing confusing initially. But got past it pretty quickly. Not what I'd have done, but seems reasonable.

Weapons are fine IMO.

machineelf · Sep 19, 2014

Neonchameleon said:
So. Let me get this straight.

The PHB is made less functional for players to make it easier for the DM to go rummaging through the PHB whenever an abridged monster statblock without the information actually needed to use the monster forces the DM to reach for the PHB.

I disagree with your assessment. If I want to go look up the spell "polymorph," I like that there's a simple alphabetical list of all the spells. I don't want to go play a guessing game about what level the spell is. There is already a list of spells for each class by level in the front of the spell section.

Giltonio_Santos · Sep 19, 2014

Except for the poor Eldritch Knight, I have no problem with the spell list as it is now. Man, we managed 2E spells organized alphabetically by level but separated into arcane and divine. If you can find a spell on that Player's Handbook, you can find a spell anywhere.

I believe there's an entirely different discussion here, though: WotC got one more chance to change the layout of the PHB to be something functional instead of traditional. Did they miss the chance? Is it really worth the effort? What about people (like me) that get the most functionality out of a book that mirrors the layout of previous PHBs?

Cyan Wisp · Sep 19, 2014

For me, the clunkiest bit is having backgrounds somewhere else. I think they would be better placed between Race and Class. Why? Because backgrounds give you set skill proficiencies while classes give you skill proficiency choices. I made about 17 characters in a row and found it more efficient to select a background first to make sure that I was not doubling up on skill proficiencies.

That and I think some tags on the spell lists (like "B" for bonus action casting, as well as something to denote rituals and reactions) would be very useful.

Other than that, love the book!

Ragmon · Sep 19, 2014

Sailor Moon said:
The functionality of the PHB can be summed up in two words: 'absolute nightmare'.

In my opinion, it's like using the old RIFTS main book when trying to create a character. I want to list a few things.

1: Races are not in alphabetical order. ( not too much of a big deal but still a bit sloppy).

2: Weapons are not divided out by two handed and one handed. ( again, just sloppy).

3: Skills are a constant WTF! It's like the skills section exploded and bits of it ended up all over the other sections. I am constantly having to flip back and forth to the point where my eyes get sore. I feel like cutting my PHB apart and pasting one myself in a better format.

4: Spells, god I don't want to go there again.

I'm not sure why it's been getting a high star rating because the most important function of the book is awful. I hope they do a reprint and put it in better order.

I completely agree, I have many more issues with the book but I wont mention them...well cause I did that already in a few posts...

1. In order of common and uncommon...what? Just list them in alphabetical order like a normal person.

2. Yea it would have been great to group them in 1 and 2 handed categories. I guess these are the thing the didnt use inspiration from the earlier books.

3. Skills, again alphabetical order would have been nice. But nooo... we had to get the Chaotic Neutral variant.

4. I think spells need short descriptors next to them on the main list and an indicator to which class they belong to in the spell descriptor section. Again its like they completely ignored their common senses and earlier PHBs. THIS IS A MUST.

I'll wait for the 5.5 version of he PHB then I might purchase it, even then if they fix the insane amount of problems the PHB has right now (I'll elaborate on them only in PM, so I don't derail a thread again

).

Ragmon · Sep 19, 2014

Cyan Wisp said:
For me, the clunkiest bit is having backgrounds somewhere else. I think they would be better placed between Race and Class. Why? Because backgrounds give you set skill proficiencies while classes give you skill proficiency choices. I made about 17 characters in a row and found it more efficient to select a background first to make sure that I was not doubling up on skill proficiencies.

That and I think some tags on the spell lists (like "B" for bonus action casting, as well as something to denote rituals and reactions) would be very useful.

Other than that, love the book!

Oh thank Ao, someone thinks that the backgrounds should be placed near the races and classes (I would say before the classes section).

Thank Dog · Sep 19, 2014

Cyan Wisp said:
For me, the clunkiest bit is having backgrounds somewhere else. I think they would be better placed between Race and Class. Why? Because backgrounds give you set skill proficiencies while classes give you skill proficiency choices. I made about 17 characters in a row and found it more efficient to select a background first to make sure that I was not doubling up on skill proficiencies.

Actually, it's somewhat the opposite way around.

With the classes you are limited to a list specific to the class. With backgrounds you can pick any two skills you want. You are not beholden to the ones listed, they are merely suggestions. The same goes for the tool proficiencies and languages and the background feature. They are all hot-swappable.

Sailor Moon · Sep 19, 2014

drjones said:
Until they develop a way to hyperlink everything in the book and read multiple sections at once despite it being made of paper I think this is as good as it's going to get.

I think its creation was predicated on the idea that in practice most people would be using a digital version of the information while they play. The book is for people who like to have a big book to browse through and appreciate as an object. Considering the state of the publishing industry and that the book seems to have sold out, this was probably a good approach.

No offense but I think your standards are a bit low if you think that's how good it could get. Just look to previous editions and you will see that it was better. Again we are seeing a classic example of Wizards just trying to be different.

Paraxis · Sep 19, 2014

77IM said:
No mention yet of the thoroughly excellent index?!?!?

It says something about the ease of use and organization of the rest of the book, but I have yet really had to use the index much at all. But looking at it now it does seem pretty comprehensive.

Cyan Wisp said:
For me, the clunkiest bit is having backgrounds somewhere else. I think they would be better placed between Race and Class. Why? Because backgrounds give you set skill proficiencies while classes give you skill proficiency choices. I made about 17 characters in a row and found it more efficient to select a background first to make sure that I was not doubling up on skill proficiencies.

That and I think some tags on the spell lists (like "B" for bonus action casting, as well as something to denote rituals and reactions) would be very useful.

Other than that, love the book!

Since if you ever get the same skill, language, or tool proficiency from multiple sources you can just pick another skill, language, or tool proficiency the order of picking race, class, or background doesn't matter that much.

But I also would have ordered it race, background, then class just because it feels more natural that way.