PHB Book Layout - Good or No so Good

[Marius Delphus]

Maybe B.A.D.D has acquired a trademark for it?

Well, gripes aside, as a relative thing I would say the 4E layouts* aren't "bad." I've seen "bad." These aren't "bad." Long story short, while there's some choices there I wish had been made differently, and some techniques I wish had been executed differently, I deny thinking of the books as looking "bad."

* When I think of "layout" I think of the visual and artistic aspects of the pages. I would have a different list were I speaking of the organization of information within the books.

[EDIT] Long story slightly longer, I liked (and still like) the look of the 3.5 books. I think the fonts are attractive, the page layout is swell, and the graphic design is supportive without being obtrusive. While there's a few small things I wish they'd done differently (for example, I agree with other posters here that the chapter "frontispieces" tended to be too dark to easily read the superimposed text), overall I was very satisfied with WOTC's ability to deliver good-looking book interiors. Speaking as a long-time player and DM as well as a desktop publisher, they "evoke" D&D for me in the same way that the 4E books "evoke" "junior high school textbook" (still grooving to that as a synopsis).

I like the look of the 4E books less, as I've outlined above. The things I wish were done differently are more important, in a way, and really impair my enjoyment of the pages. Not "bad," per se, but exhibiting several things that make me dissatisfied with the book interiors. I feel like WOTC ought to be able to really knock my socks off with their pages, and they didn't manage to do that this time around. [/EDIT]

 

[amysrevenge]

4) You are a DM and want to look at how a particular power works when designing an encounter, NPC, monster, or trap, but you don't remember what level or even what class it came from.

Would this really happen? Which of the following scenarios seems more likely, when designing an encounter:

1) OK, I remember that there was a low-ish level cleric power keyed off of Strength that has a "The enemy cannot attack (save ends)" effect. I don't remember the name or level of the power, but I'd like to throw it on a NPC; I better look it up.

2) OK, I remember that there was a power called "Nimbus of Doom". I don't remember what class it's from or what it does or what ability it's keyed off of, but I want to give it to an NPC; I better look it up.

For me, I often don't even remember the names of the powers that my own characters have. Frankly, the names of powers don't have a whole lot to do with their effects.

The only kind of index that I could possibly support would be one that listed all the powers with a "dazed" effect, and then all the powers with an "immobilized" effect, then "prone", then "stunned", and so on. That could be handy.

3) OK, I need a power that knocks prone, is a burst, and keys off of Int. I'll flip through *the imaginary index mentioned above* for a Wizard power under "prone".

Think of playing in a con game with pre-gens where the powers or feats are listed by just their name but not explained in full detail.

Theoretically this pregen would have a class and level, and I posit that it would be much faster/easier to turn to the table of contents and then to the beginning of the class in question and then start flipping forward, than to go to an index, parse through it to a power, and flip back. At the very best it would be even steven (and then why are we indexing again?).

And feats already have an index of sorts, right in the feats chapter. With no page numbers it isn't a true index, but the feats are alphabetical and only go across a handful of pages.

 

[Toben the Many]

I feel like WOTC ought to be able to really knock my socks off with their pages, and they didn't manage to do that this time around.

Yeah, that's the thing. I suppose I wouldn't be so nit-picky if it wasn't the industry leader putting out the PHB.

Say what you will about the PHB layout, the book that gets a really low grade from me for layout is the Monster Manual, unfortunately.

 

[Primal]

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.

While the font size may be easier on the eyes of the "old guard" in general, I found the use of flagrant colors to be hard on my poor, old eyes. Maybe it's just me, but I think it would have been better if green, red and orange hadn't been used so much.

 

[Rolflyn]

The feats section of PHB1 was really bad because you might turn to it and find a feat and then later realize you are in the paragon or epic section. There was no indication of what type of feat you were looking at. PHB2 fixed this by putting "11th level" as a prereq on all paragon feats.

I'm still not sure that dividing them up is such a good idea. It's not like once I reach 11th level I'm no longer interested in heroic feats. It just makes me look in two places (three at epic).

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

While the font size may be easier on the eyes of the "old guard" in general, I found the use of flagrant colors to be hard on my poor, old eyes. Maybe it's just me, but I think it would have been better if green, red and orange hadn't been used so much.

Good points.

 

[S'mon]

I find locating the equipment lists a problem; they're buried near the back, along with combat, another thing I need to reference frequently.

 

[Herremann the Wise]

The feats section of PHB1 was really bad because you might turn to it and find a feat and then later realize you are in the paragon or epic section. There was no indication of what type of feat you were looking at. PHB2 fixed this by putting "11th level" as a prereq on all paragon feats.

I'm still not sure that dividing them up is such a good idea. It's not like once I reach 11th level I'm no longer interested in heroic feats. It just makes me look in two places (three at epic).

This is a good point although our group has not played up to these tiers yet so I'm not sure how difficult this would be in practise. I do remember in our first game finding a feat that I liked (sort of a feat in itself somewhat) only to find it was a paragon feat and unavailable.

I'm just wondering whether there was a little too much zigging with layout decisions and not enough zagging? It would not have been an easy process.

Best Regards
Herremann the Wise