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

[tetrasodium]

except for compatibility between 2014 and 2024

And the next year or so of time before we have the new monster manual and new dmg made to go with the new phb.

 

[mamba]

Never said it was, but they seemed to be the main things people cared about in the book as a whole at the time I posted in the thread, so I was wondering if "good for new players" somehow now means "good book overall". Since then a more broad look at the product has occurred.

well, it is the biggest improvement I am seeing (not much of a fan of the actual rule changes, too power-creepy and too magical), so maybe there is a reason layout gets mentioned a lot

 

[Micah Sweet]

well, it is the biggest improvement I am seeing (not much of a fan of the actual rule changes, too power-creepy and too magical), so maybe there is a reason layout gets mentioned a lot

If you're not happy with those non-layout aspects, wouldn't your general opinion of the book be affected by that?

 

[mamba]

If you're not happy with those non-layout aspects, wouldn't your general opinion of the book be affected by that?

of course it is affected. What the book has going for it is better organization, better layout, mostly clearer rules (capitalized keywords, less natural language), and better quality art.

Whether you like the art and the rule changes is personal opinion. To me the art is mostly fine, the rules are going in the opposite direction of what I want, but not all that far (2014 already was over that line for me), so all in all I consider it a wash.

If you do not mind / like the direction I’d see it as an improvement over 2014.

 

[Xamnam]

As a mostly-forever-DM, most importantly, I like the vast majority of the mechanical changes that have been made, thematically, logistically, coherently. My reaction to the art I've seen has been neutral to positive. I do not yet have it in hand, so I can't speak to the layout/organization, but I doubt that's going to be disappointing, given what I've heard. Any frustrations I'm likely to have are on flavor things like the lack of credits page disclaimer or playtest rules that I was rooting for that didn't make the final cut, which is likely to total out to a pretty small negative.

 

[Quickleaf]

I don't have it yet, so I can't give it a fair review.

From all accounts, there is an awful lot of power creep, which is the opposite direction I'd like to see the game go. There are also a lot of changes that I don't think improve the game in any way, at least not for me.

I think the improvements to the martial classes are probably good in that they bring them closer to parity with casters, but will slow down play and make the game noticeably more fiddly.

I think the buffs to casters (e.g. bigger healing, some spells improved) are unnecessary and ill-conceived.

I'm definitely buying the book- I'm a dnd whore- but I am not sure how much of it I will end up using.

I have a very similar view, but have decided not to get the new book.

Based on playtesting some of the UA, watching 3 flip-throughs of PHB, listening to insiders discuss their playtesting of the new PHB, and WotC’s press releases, my perception as a DM: There doesn’t seem to have been a DM advocate during their design work - the added rules & rules changes are going to make more headache for me as DM. Plus there are glaring issues that were not addressed at all AFAICT. I also think some of the “usability improvements” are just flat out inaccurate - eg. seems like you need to check three sections of the book to fully understand how hiding works.

I’m also kind of dreading playing 5e going forward as there are lots of “blink and you’ll miss it rules changes” to conditions, hiding, influence, spellcasting, etc, etc. I can already see a new player assuming when I refer to “XYZ” that I’m referring to the “2024 XYZ” and that leading to miscommunication.

 

[Argyle King]

I've seen the "supers" complaint on social media and it's always pretty funny to me as someone who really started playing the running the game when 3.5 came out. Nothing in 4e, 5e, or 5.24e can hold a candle to the over-the-top broken power level of 3.5.

A lot of what I heard from the YouTube videos was less about max possible power and more about what the game (and in-game world) assume are normal functions.

One of the comments that I remember was that a tavern in D&D looks more like Mos Eisley Cantina. Aside from that, a lot of the discussion was about powers and abilities being more-easily accessible to a character or a person living inside of a world built upon 5e24's assumptions.

I remember a lot of broken things from 3.5. For example, I had a caster cable of using Time Stop, teleporting to a demi-plane where time worked differently, resting, and coming back to the encounter with a full compliment of spells.

I also remember playing 4E and being able to perform a standing jump from the ground to land on the back of a dragon and kill it with a rake while still in the first tier of play (late first tier, but first tier). Likewise, I remember being able to teleport around the battlefield like Nightcrawler.

For what it's worth, I liked what many of the 3.5 books implied they were trying to emulate (even if actual play was different). An example of that is that I thought Heros of Battle was potentially a cool concept, but it required approaching the game in a way that ignored a lot of my character's capabilities.

Likewise, I highly enjoyed what the 4E preview books described as the vision for the in-game world, and I liked a lot of the Points of Light lore. However, I had frustrating experiences when I tried to run or play 4E in the same way I tried to run or play 3.5.

 

[Charlaquin]

A lot of what I heard from the YouTube videos was less about max possible power and more about what the game (and in-game world) assume are normal functions.

One of the comments that I remember was that a tavern in D&D looks more like Mos Eisley Cantina. Aside from that, a lot of the discussion was about powers and abilities being more-easily accessible to a character or a person living inside of a world built upon 5e24's assumptions.

The core book doesn’t really describe what the demographics of a typical tavern are like. There are more species options in the new PHB than there were in the 2014 PHB, but the DM is under no pressure to make that set of species representative of the average population. If you want your taverns full of humans and maybe the occasional halfling vacationer or dwarf merchant, the 2024 PHB doesn't get in the way of you doing so.

 

[Micah Sweet]

of course it is affected. What the book has going for it is better organization, better layout, mostly clearer rules (capitalized keywords, less natural language), and better quality art.

Whether you like the art and the rule changes is personal opinion. To me the art is mostly fine, the rules are going in the opposite direction of what I want, but not all that far (2014 already was over that line for me), so all in all I consider it a wash.

If you do not mind / like the direction I’d see it as an improvement over 2014.

Ah, for me the only factor that really moves the needle is whether or not I like the rules changes, and...I don't.

 

[Micah Sweet]

The core book doesn’t really describe what the demographics of a typical tavern are like. There are more species options in the new PHB than there were in the 2014 PHB, but the DM is under no pressure to make that set of species representative of the average population. If you want your taverns full of humans and maybe the occasional halfling vacationer or dwarf merchant, the 2024 PHB doesn't get in the way of you doing so.

Players assuming that anything in the PH is fair game (a long standing issue) is a form of pressure, the social kind. Heck, 5.0 had more verbiage than 5.5 that argued against assuming everything in the PH was freely available, and it was still an issue.