D&D (2024) DMs what do you think of the new PHB?

[tetrasodium]

Yes. Also, players would do this thing where they’d buff one skill to the max and then try to shoehorn in ways to use it everywhere — regardless whether they were saying “I want to roll X” or describing a convoluted method of doing something that would make the skill seem appropriate. The actions system allows me to better control that; instead of saying, “no, you cannot intimidate a book,” I can say “the influence action only affects creatures.”

Plus it sets context for players — e.g. you can’t use persuasion for everything. That’s great because it makes inroads toward solving the “let the bard do the talking” problem.

I would think that it will also drive a well deserved spike through the skull of DM: "so what are you guys doing while Alice does that">BobCindyDaveEdith&Frank "nothing, just waiting & maybe keeping watch" since they can be doing things differently near each other instead of "perception check...->... ok sure, innnnvvveeessstttiiigggaaattteee check"

 

[kittenhugs]

As a DM, I really like that the rules are more concise, for players' sake. I think the Rules Glossary is a bit of a missed opportunity tho. It's not just a place to find quick definitions of things but it makes the core rules spread between the front and back sections of the book, so you'll be flipping between those regularly when learning the rules. I'm sure in-play the glossary becomes more useful for in-the-moment referencing, tho

I like the new emphasis on feats, to make characters a little more diverse mechanically and to rebalance the out-of-whack PHB feats. The layout and art are better across the board compared to the 2014 PHB. I love that tools and adventuring gear all have rules and are actually useful now. I love that sorcerers and warlocks get more spells now, though I'm not sure wizards needed to have even more lol

I don't like how restrictive backgrounds (and therefor your origin feat and proficiencies) are. It's the thing I immediately threw out, letting people customize them and swap each part. I hate that a criminal rogue has two sources for thieves' tools proficiency and no ability RAW to swap one of them. I hate that each of the magic initiate feat options are restricted to one background each. I hate that class/background combinations are unnecessarily restricted--an acolyte paladin is straight up worse than a farmer paladin. A soldier can't start with tavern brawler. And there's little space to argue that these restrictions are part of some wider game balance or even to keep characters in some limited story design space, any scrutiny will see the backgrounds, their associated ability scores, and their associated feat are design decisions based on vibes alone. Yes it's just a +1 difference in your main stat, but we already knew from 2014 species design that restricted ability score increases restricts the character concepts you actually end up seeing at the table.

I really don't like that they barely did anything with the ranger class changes, it's definitely an afterthought despite how low they said the 2014 one was rating. Two-weapon fighting is still an absolute mess, just a different one than the 2014 PHB had (TWF builds have to base their play on a weapon property, a weapon mastery, a fighting style, and an obscurely-worded general feat), and statistically it still struggles to be worth the investment vs. just taking Great Weapon Master and a weapon with Cleave. And god do I hate that find familiar still has them acting on their own initiative when they already fixed all the other action economy annoyances with summons elsewhere.

 

[SlyFlourish]

My main worry is that all the new options are going to slow down combat. Just about everything else I can fix on the DM side of things.

 

[Micah Sweet]

My main worry is that all the new options are going to slow down combat. Just about everything else I can fix on the DM side of things.

How many things to fix are too many? At what point is it better to use a different rulebook?

 

[mamba]

How many things to fix are too many? At what point is it better to use a different rulebook?

@SlyFlourish is using different rulebooks for different campaigns, right now they are using Level Up if I am not mistaken

 

[MonsterEnvy]

Shush. Of course we support the exploration pillar, conveniently accessed with the Project Sigil VTT where GMs can explore all kinds of built-in and purchased add/on modules!

We don’t know any of that.

 

[MonsterEnvy]

My main worry is that all the new options are going to slow down combat. Just about everything else I can fix on the DM side of things.

Having used the new stuff in two sessions so far, there is really no difference in combat speed so far.

 

[Quickleaf]

As a DM, I really like that the rules are more concise, for players' sake. I think the Rules Glossary is a bit of a missed opportunity tho. It's not just a place to find quick definitions of things but it makes the core rules spread between the front and back sections of the book, so you'll be flipping between those regularly when learning the rules. I'm sure in-play the glossary becomes more useful for in-the-moment referencing, tho

I like the new emphasis on feats, to make characters a little more diverse mechanically and to rebalance the out-of-whack PHB feats. The layout and art are better across the board compared to the 2014 PHB. I love that tools and adventuring gear all have rules and are actually useful now. I love that sorcerers and warlocks get more spells now, though I'm not sure wizards needed to have even more lol

I don't like how restrictive backgrounds (and therefor your origin feat and proficiencies) are. It's the thing I immediately threw out, letting people customize them and swap each part. I hate that a criminal rogue has two sources for thieves' tools proficiency and no ability RAW to swap one of them. I hate that each of the magic initiate feat options are restricted to one background each. I hate that class/background combinations are unnecessarily restricted--an acolyte paladin is straight up worse than a farmer paladin. A soldier can't start with tavern brawler. And there's little space to argue that these restrictions are part of some wider game balance or even to keep characters in some limited story design space, any scrutiny will see the backgrounds, their associated ability scores, and their associated feat are design decisions based on vibes alone. Yes it's just a +1 difference in your main stat, but we already knew from 2014 species design that restricted ability score increases restricts the character concepts you actually end up seeing at the table.

I really don't like that they barely did anything with the ranger class changes, it's definitely an afterthought despite how low they said the 2014 one was rating. Two-weapon fighting is still an absolute mess, just a different one than the 2014 PHB had (TWF builds have to base their play on a weapon property, a weapon mastery, a fighting style, and an obscurely-worded general feat), and statistically it still struggles to be worth the investment vs. just taking Great Weapon Master and a weapon with Cleave. And god do I hate that find familiar still has them acting on their own initiative when they already fixed all the other action economy annoyances with summons elsewhere.

A wise and sensible analysis!

One would almost be deceived into thinking you are not, in fact a cat. Almost.

 

[CreamCloud0]

My main worry is that all the new options are going to slow down combat. Just about everything else I can fix on the DM side of things.

I reckon that nothing that will be added will be slower than a party of casters were before these new options!

 

[Weiley31]

I view 5E more Witcher/Renaissance (With the REALLY high upper class looking like late game Assassins Creed 2)/Soul Calibur in regards to looks/aesthetics in feel