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

[Micah Sweet]

Except, no, in this case the claim is made that there's payola going on with WotC and reviewers.

I'm not sure I see your point (beyond being a little confused about what "payola" is). What I'm saying is that, while what the claim is about can certainly matter regarding how much scrutiny it should be considered under and how much evidence we might demand, whether of not the overall claim is positive or negative should not.

 

[mamba]

Not really the point though, is it? No reason to accept that as "just the way it is".

accept what, that people make more unfounded negative claims than positive ones?

 

[Micah Sweet]

accept what, that people make more unfounded negative claims than positive ones?

Who's to say? Perhaps it's just that people rail against negative claims more because they don't want them to be true? It would certainly make sense.

 

[mamba]

Who's to say? Perhaps it's just that people rail against negative claims more because they don't want them to be true? It would certainly make sense.

you could reverse that just as well, esp. when you start with ‘who’s to say’…

In this particular case it is easy, the claim is nonsense and does not align with the facts at all

 

[Quickleaf]

I can see people trying this, but I'm there to move things along, not care about their +5% chance at something. You tell them no once, then it's auto-fail and move on.

Sounds harsh written like that, but I just... if you're not getting paid for it, you're presumably playing with friends, and they should know better than to waste everyone's time.

This might be too esoteric for the simple question about “what do DMs think of 2024 PHB”, but I often wonder about how negative space in design influences player behavior. How vague rules (whether intended or not) can encourage players’ worst impulses or better angels. This is above and beyond “this type of players is more attracted to game X than game Y”, and an actual interaction between rules and player behavior.

I know I’ve seen friends get caught up in something to do with the rules and get frustrated, or feel they have to squeeze all the juice they can or they’re not supporting what the rules say their character is supposed to do. Yeah, with friends we can catch each other and laugh and get back on track…

But the fact that we got off track? Is that something innate about US or is there a less obvious influence that certain games rules are having on us?

My experience is “it’s both, but the latter is definitely a real thing.” YMMV.

 

[Argyle King]

Various thoughts while looking through a PHB today:

•rules index is a step in the right direction
•while the layout is a vast improvement over 2024, it still feels a little sloppy in a few places. Though, I'm not 100% sure how to explain that.
•At times, the book feels like it has a lot of wasted space. Much of the artwork is very good (even if not a style that speaks to me personally,) but some of it feels more like trying to fluff the page count.
•What method was used for the artwork? A lot of pieces make heavy use of shadow in the same way. I'm curious if that's a byproduct of some program used to simulate light and shading effects.
•I like the large portraits at the beginning of each class description. Kinda reminds me of what Fantasy Flight Games did with Star Wars.
•Sorcerer Metamagic still leaves a lot up be desired
•I think the Warlock layout would have been better if the subclass portrait was more often on the same page as the subclass it was supposed to represent
•Kinda cool to have tiefling sub-species options connected to different planes, though a little odd that they all still end up looking more-or-less the same.
•Halflings being able to Hide behind other creatures means that questions about the Stealth rules may come up frequently
•I like most of the species entry artwork. What kind of cookies is the dwarf on the left making?
•The Gnome piece is still a very good piece, but it also seems like it would be part of a different game.
•Orcs are now a gray version of Beast Boy from Teen Titans?
•Reading through 2024 Backgrounds, I still feel like the 2024 approach is a step in the wrong directions. Gaining the freedom to select the feat you want by using a 2014 background is the better option.
•Despite most of the artwork being sleek and professional, the presentation comes across a bit too sanitized and bland. I imagine that comes down to personal preference.
•I thought there would be more content to celebrate the anniversary of D&D.
•Overall, I think that people who want to buy the book will appreciate the improvements. For those who are on the fence, I don't think you're missing out on anything by waiting until the other 2 core books are finished.
•It's still hard to tell if this will be a revamp like 3.5 that keeps going for a while or if it will be more like Book of 9 Swords that comes out as a late release middle ground between this edition and the next one.

 

[Charlaquin]

Various thoughts while looking through a PHB today:

•rules index is a step in the right direction
•while the layout is a vast improvement over 2024, it still feels a little sloppy in a few places. Though, I'm not 100% sure how to explain that.

To me, it feels like it’s organized like a PDF or other digital document. The rules glossary especially feels like an appendix that other sections of the text would hyperlink to, and indeed, in D&D Beyond it does work that way. Unfortunately, they didn’t include the paper format equivalent (page number references) in the printed book. As a result, the rules glossary ends up being harder to navigate in paper than it should be. It’s still a lot better than the 2014 version, but there’s a lot of room for improvement.

•What method was used for the artwork? A lot of pieces make heavy use of shadow in the same way. I'm curious if that's a byproduct of some program used to simulate light and shading effects.

Probably more a result of a style guide than a common toolset. I don’t know how WotC does it for D&D, but at least for MtG they use a variety of artists, all of whom make the original pieces in traditional media. WotC recognizes that their artists can make more money selling those original pieces, so they don’t demand digital for their art commissions.

 

[Argyle King]

To me, it feels like it’s organized like a PDF or other digital document. The rules glossary especially feels like an appendix that other sections of the text would hyperlink to, and indeed, in D&D Beyond it does work that way. Unfortunately, they didn’t include the paper format equivalent (page number references) in the printed book. As a result, the rules glossary ends up being harder to navigate in paper than it should be. It’s still a lot better than the 2014 version, but there’s a lot of room for improvement.

Probably more a result of a style guide than a common toolset. I don’t know how WotC does it for D&D, but at least for MtG they use a variety of artists, all of whom make the original pieces in traditional media. WotC recognizes that their artists can make more money selling those original pieces, so they don’t demand digital for their art commissions.

I didn't notice the shadow thing at first, but, after a while, I started to notice that a lot of the pieces heavy a heavy blob of shadow somewhere (often in the middle of a body,) as well as some aspect that looks overly shiny. The transition from shadow to light (without gradients of visibly) is a different aesthetic choice than I expected.

Not many signatures of artists on the artwork. If there are, I didn't notice while briefly flipping through earlier.

Some of the pieces I enjoyed the most were the ones that didn't use that style. For example, the armor on page 42 is cool. I also like the multiclass dragonborn.

Maybe using so much shadow is a security feature to disincentivize copying.

It's cool for the people using digital if the book is linked together like that. If the company could also publish books that function like books, that would be a nice bonus.

 

[teitan]

By now I guess people are sick of hearing my opinions... too much player's entitlement and especially too many options for retraining or swapping abilities are the main reason why I won't switch to 5.5. It makes it annoyingly difficult to prepare an adventure if characters almost always have the perfect tools for the job. One of the main reasons I like playing RPGs is pretty much when you find you don't have the perfect tool, and need to think differently.

That’s why the DMG says “final arbiter of the rules”.

 

[Micah Sweet]

That’s why the DMG says “final arbiter of the rules”.

But will the new DMG say that? Who knows? We do know that very little of the hype surrounding 5.5 has done anything to gets DMs excited about it. Instead they joke about how frustrated DMs will be by some new player widget.