PHB Book Layout - Good or No so Good

[Dannyalcatraz]

I can't find any good reason they used such big text

The cynical MBA in me says its to inflate page count, and thus price of the product.

It is, however, unarguably easier on the eyes...especially of the older gamers. Considering that some of the people in the hobby are in their 60s, that's not a bad thing.

Its not quite a wash...I'd call it a marginal negative.

 

[Henry]

I still have to say, a year in -- the PHB reads like crap, but the utility of its design can't be beat. Coming from game books that used to read pleasurably, but were never laid out for use at the table, it does feel weird to me. However, it's not a bad thing.

The 4e PHB is laid out for ease of use better than any book I've seen for D&D yet. The powers being next to the classes, counterintuitive though that is from previous precedent, actually does make it easier to find stuff. The skills, feats, etc. all are easy to find and reference from my perspective.

Only thing I do feel negatively about as you say is the magic items - I still think for a game that encourages an older school style of "give magic items rather than making them", including MI's in the book was not a good move. Being in the equipment chapter, or right next to it, makes it even more a subconscious "entitlement."

But as far as power layout? In-game, I just can't find fault with the PHB's reference power.

 

[Mouseferatu]

I still have to say, a year in -- the PHB reads like crap, but the utility of its design can't be beat. Coming from game books that used to read pleasurably, but were never laid out for use at the table, it does feel weird to me. However, it's not a bad thing.

My thoughts exactly. The 4E PHB is the very first PHB in, well, any edition that I felt was written, first and foremost, as a reference work.

This is an excellent thing, from a game-play standpoint. However, the fact that it's not an inspirational read--that the cool flavor and feel are found in other books--is also a detriment. I know more than one 3E fan who took a look at the PHB, thought it was boring on an initial skim, and didn't look any further. These aren't random folks on the net, I'm talking about people I know personally, who I truly believe would enjoy the new game, but were turned off by the flavorless PHB.

I'm not sure there's any better solution, and I'm not saying WotC made the wrong choice, just that there was definitely a trade-off for the ease of use.

 

[Plane Sailing]

In contrast to Henry, I find the utility of the design appalling. Every time someone attempts a grab or a bull rush or one of the other conditions or actions scattered through the combat chapter we spend ages paging backwards and forwards trying to find the right place.

Admittedly we rarely have to look up grab now because it has proved so useless that it is rarely attempted! (and FWIW we never had any problem with 3e grapple which seemed straightforward and understandable to us, so I'm guessing this is primarily a layout problem).

I hate having to look something up in the PHB at the table, because it always takes longer than expected. It is also the only RPG rules I possess which is too boring to sit down and just read through.

I would have liked better arranging of material, better index(!), smaller type face and a bunch of other changes to layout.

That's me.

Cheers

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

My thoughts exactly. The 4E PHB is the very first PHB in, well, any edition that I felt was written, first and foremost, as a reference work.

Hmmm...I don't know what kind of reference materials you use, but that doesn't jibe with my perceptions.

Most of my reference material is extensively cross-referenced, has nice glossaries, indexes and appendices. As mentioned before, they define key terms & symbols before, contemporaneously or immediately after using them. Material referenced from outside sources gets a parenthetical or footnote with a page listing for ease of location. Sometimes, even stuff within the book located in other chapters gets similar treatment. Things that are different get their own chapters or subsections.

No...I don't see the PHB as a reference book.

 

[Mouseferatu]

Those would, indeed, make for a better reference book. No argument there. But I don't their presence defines a reference book. The PHB, while it has its flaws, is clearly (at least to me) set up primarily for quick use in looking up specific details, and less for teaching the game via a front-to-back read-through.

 

[delericho]

It's not great. My major issues are that there is too much whitespace, "The Wall" of all the powers is really daunting, and the powers themselves are an ugly mess of colour.

Still, it does have some good features. Moving the magic items to the PHB is a good thing (if the assumption is that players choose the items for their PCs, rather than the AD&D model where the DM was the primary arbiter in that area). Also, grouping the powers by class, and keeping them with the class descriptions is probably an overall plus (despite being the major contributor to "The Wall").

So I'm torn - it really needs some work, but at the same time it's not immediately clear how to perfect it.

It needs a Power index.

This would be a massive help.

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

Those would, indeed, make for a better reference book. No argument there. But I don't their presence defines a reference book.

Fair enough.

But IMHO, even without making the PHB the ne plus ultra of reference books, it has discernible room for improvement just to get it to the level of some previous editions.

To me, dividing the PHB into distinct chapters for (in no particular order) races, skills, feats, classes, combat, equipment, magic items and powers/spells, with a nice glossary & index would have been better. That's more or less what previous editions (and many other games, FWIW) have done. If you don't care for the way 3.X grouped them all alphabetically, with little lines about which class gets them at what level, you could just as easily adopt the 1Ed type layout, in which each class' powers get a separate subsection, organized by alphabetically & by level.

But the 4Ed book folds the powers & spells into the character class section- and it does so in a way that you can go for pages and pages without seeing anything BUT those powers & spells. As I've stated, its a mess to me and others, and I honestly feel it slows down the "research" process of looking through the classes and powers for something in particular.

I hate to say it, but it actually reminds me of the way Palladium lays out RIFTS and other Palladium system game products.

In addition, key terms & symbols are defined dozens of pages away from their initial use. That's sloppy. In 3.X, you'd often get a definition within a paragraph or 2, or a sidebar. I found very little confusion of that kind in 1Ed or 2Ed.

(Yes, I know that there are exceptions- some quite egregious- and I've commented on those elsewhere.)

 

[Mouseferatu]

But the 4Ed book folds the powers & spells into the character class section- and it does so in a way that you can go for pages and pages without seeing anything BUT those powers & spells. As I've stated, its a mess to me and others, and I honestly feel it slows down the "research" process of looking through the classes and powers for something in particular.

Huh. I had the opposite reaction. I like having the powers bundled in with the class descriptions. I've found that it makes them, for me, easier to find, since I know if I need anything on, say, the cleric, I turn to the cleric section and I'm done.

I'll agree with you that the Wall o' Powers is daunting, but I think that would've been the case even if they'd broken them out into their own chapter. And I don't actually find them much more daunting than the old "mondo chapter of spells" from prior editions. A little bit more, perhaps, but not much so--and only because all classes have them.

I'd definitely sign the petition for a power's index, though. And possibly an "important terms" glossary as well.

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

Huh. I had the opposite reaction. I like having the powers bundled in with the class descriptions. I've found that it makes them, for me, easier to find, since I know if I need anything on, say, the cleric, I turn to the cleric section and I'm done.

I'll agree with you that the Wall o' Powers is daunting, but I think that would've been the case even if they'd broken them out into their own chapter. And I don't actually find them much more daunting than the old "mondo chapter of spells" from prior editions. A little bit more, perhaps, but not much so--and only because all classes have them.

But you could use that logic to justify putting class-specific equipment & magic items in their sub-chapters, too...and here we go down the slippy-slide!

For me, at least, if 4Ed had put in the basic Cleric class stuff, then a ref like "See Cleric Powers, pXXX," then gone onto describing the next class, I'd have been much happier.

Its not that the Wall is daunting, its just that its placement is inconvenient for quickly comparing the classes themselves. The 1Ed book? The description of classes is, what...18 pages? And that doubled by 3Ed, perhaps. But at the end of that, most people know the class roles and which one they want to play, even though they don't know what the spells some classes actually do.

But 4Ed? How many pages does each class take up, with basic description plus powers?

We'll just have to agree to disagree on this one.