D&D 5E Merits of including too much or too little in the PHB

[Sadrik]

The D&D 5e design team opted to throw a wide net and capture many niche concepts into the base PHB game. Granted many of these options were in the 4e base game already.

Game concepts that have been released that drip setting flavor:
Wild magic
Dragonborn
Tiefling
Drow
Warlocks

So the question is, what are the merits of adding into the base PHB lots of flavor, and I suppose what are the drawbacks too.

For instance, does this enhance the experience for the players and does it enhance the ability of the DM to have them? Or does it detract from the player or DM or both? Will it be hard for the DM to say no I don't want Drow in my game? How about for players to will it be hard for them to accept if the DM says they don't want wild magic or pacts or whatever in their campaign setting?

 

[Ruin Explorer]

The D&D 5e design team opted to throw a wide net and capture many niche concepts into the base PHB game. Granted many of these options were in the 4e base game already.

Game concepts that have been released that drip setting flavor:
Wild magic
Dragonborn
Tiefling
Drow
Warlocks

So the question is, what are the merits of adding into the base PHB lots of flavor, and I suppose what are the drawbacks too.

For instance, does this enhance the experience for the players and does it enhance the ability of the DM to have them? Or does it detract from the player or DM or both? Will it be hard for the DM to say no I don't want Drow in my game? How about for players to will it be hard for them to accept if the DM says they don't want wild magic or pacts or whatever in their campaign setting?

This is ridiculously subjective, Sadrik. You seem to have no criteria beyond "Sadrik think so" for what "drips flavour". If you do have criteria, what are they? Halflings existing tells you as much about a world as Dragonborn, for goodness sake.

 

[Giltonio_Santos]

I believe the merits or drawbacks of this approach will rest entirely in how they use it. The 4E approach of "all of this is the game, so let's implode the Realms and find somewhere to place these dragonborns" will make the game terrible.

If they use the 2E approach of "this is the game, now let's see how you can use parts of it to create something unique and flavorful", which I believe is the approach they are taking, we'll have a great game, because the basic rules are very solid, in my opinion.

We'll have to wait and see, but I think that the first approach wouldn't see a wild magic user in the PHB.

 

[I'm A Banana]

I think it is really key to note that there will likely be a big difference between these two things:

"base game"

and

"PHB contents."

PHB != "base game."

Base game is likely going to be Basic D&D -- that is the assumption, the core, the simple baseline from which the rest of the game can choose to depart (or not).

Given that, some specific flavor in the PHB is not a problem, and is, in fact, quite a good thing, because none of it will be presumed to the case at every D&D table. It is a bunch of modules you can use if you like them, or change if you don't, or not use if you REALLY don't. It doesn't HAVE to be generic, so it can afford to be specific, and specificity gives you more flavor and context and interesting story materials.

Which is great. You get the interesting flavor of specifics, without the assumption that all tables will be using this flavor. Excellent.

 

[sidonunspa]

Easy solution

someone should create a PDF with a checklist of all the classes and optional rules in the PHB & DMG

have someone make it form fallible, check marks...

GM fills it out, prints it, and hands it to his players.....

This is what is in, and what is out... here are the page numbers....

done...

 

[Blackbrrd]

I believe the merits or drawbacks of this approach will rest entirely in how they use it. The 4E approach of "all of this is the game, so let's implode the Realms and find somewhere to place these dragonborns" will make the game terrible.

If they use the 2E approach of "this is the game, now let's see how you can use parts of it to create something unique and flavorful", which I believe is the approach they are taking, we'll have a great game, because the basic rules are very solid, in my opinion.

We'll have to wait and see, but I think that the first approach wouldn't see a wild magic user in the PHB.

I thinking (and hoping) for the same thing as you. That they have lots of options in the PHB that shouldn't necessarily "core" (in my opinion). Not every setting needs Dragonborn or Tieflings. They don't need to use much space here, just enough to let players and DMs know that not every race or class is selectable in a given game.

 

[Ruin Explorer]

I thinking (and hoping) for the same thing as you. That they have lots of options in the PHB that shouldn't necessarily "core" (in my opinion). Not every setting needs Dragonborn or Tieflings. They don't need to use much space here, just enough to let players and DMs know that not every race or class is selectable in a given game.

So long as they make it clear that applies to ALL races and classes, not just some of them. Haflings and Gnomes are as specific as Tieflings and Dragonborn, fr'ex.

 

[Thaumaturge]

The problem with the toolkit method they've chosen is for people who became really accustomed to the "everything is core" mentality.

If the culture of a gaming group is that everything in the PHB, MM, and DMG is core, 5e is going to provide some culture shock.

Of course, if one is accustomed to everything being core, seemingly one would be accustomed to having core bits one doesn't like. Or one just likes everything.

Thaumaturge.

 

[DEFCON 1]

Never go out of your way to try and placate whiners. WotC doesn't write their books to do it. You as the DM shouldn't either.

If someone wants to use something you (as DM) have already said 'no' on... they can either accept it, not play in your game, or try and make cogent reasons why they should be allowed to. You then can make your decision based on their arguments.

And if they whine that they should be "allowed" to simply because it appears in a book... you tell that person to grow up and accept your ruling for your specific campaign or not play.

But in no way should any of the D&D documents ever be edited in such a way to specifically try and make those whiners feel better and get their way. Things will be included or not included in the books because they serve a purpose that way, not because it's to strictly minimize complaints.

 

[Remathilis]

No way. I want more options. More is better.