D&D 5E Advice on Books?

[dave2008]

Thanks @Ash Mantle those descriptions help.

The group is largely meat-and-potatoes when it comes to races. Exotic races aren't appealing. I don't know about the other players, but for things like Backgrounds, I tend to find pre-published backgrounds to be limiting, so I usually make up my own. It sounds like I don't need things like "Curse of Strahd."

As @Ash Mantle pointed out, there is a lot out there in other supplements / adventures that are official WotC products that are not strictly for players. Of note: there have been no new classes or feats yet (just archtypes, backgrounds, races, etc.); however, the up coming Eberron book will provide the Artificer.

In fact, except for the lack of classes it looks like there is almost enough for another PHB spread out amongst other books. I hadn't realized that until reviewing Ash's list

 

[dave2008]

At first, just official stuff. The person who typically runs the game tends to roll that way because he doesn't have a lot of time to evaluate other sources. I suspect he might continue to use the Golarion setting.

If I'm asked to run, I write my own adventures for my own setting. I'm much more open to other sources, house rules, and custom content. I can see picking and choosing from D&D Beyond's player-made content.

There is also UA content which is semi-official. Most of the player content has ended up in a book eventually (though usually refined some).

 

[cmad1977]

Honestly you’ll be fine with the PHB alone. The other books are pretty good.

 

[darjr]

Yea just start with the PHB. Don’t sweat the other books yet.

 

[Parmandur]

Thanks @Ash Mantle those descriptions help.

The group is largely meat-and-potatoes when it comes to races. Exotic races aren't appealing. I don't know about the other players, but for things like Backgrounds, I tend to find pre-published backgrounds to be limiting, so I usually make up my own. It sounds like I don't need things like "Curse of Strahd."

Xanathar's Guide might be the only supplement of interest, as described.

 

[ad_hoc]

There is also UA content which is semi-official. Most of the player content has ended up in a book eventually (though usually refined some).

IMO UA stuff is terrible.

I think both Mearls and Crawford have mentioned that they intentionally make it too strong and then plan to scale it back for publication.


I also recommend you just start with the PHB. Once you've used that for a while XgtE is worth it. If I were to do things over again those are the only 2 I would buy besides published adventures.

 

[Parmandur]

IMO UA stuff is terrible.

I think both Mearls and Crawford have mentioned that they intentionally make it too strong and then plan to scale it back for publication.


I also recommend you just start with the PHB. Once you've used that for a while XgtE is worth it. If I were to do things over again those are the only 2 I would buy besides published adventures.

It's not terrible, it's rough draft for basic playtest purposes. Once they have determined if people want something, they them do the balancing playtesting in-house. Not before UA.

 

[ad_hoc]

It's not terrible, it's rough draft for basic playtest purposes. Once they have determined if people want something, they them do the balancing playtesting in-house. Not before UA.

In my opinion it is terrible.

 

[Parmandur]

In my opinion it is terrible.

I mean, sure, use at the table at your own peril, but it gets the job of designing the game done.

 

[zztong]

Can I ask about the motivation for this? Is it just time for something new? Just curious as I'm casually interested in PF 2.

As @dave2008 mentioned, I've been active on the Pathfinder boards for about a year all during the playtest, so there's lots to dig for over there. I'm happy to chat direct through the board's message system, if you want, but don't want to sidetrack this thread.