D&D 5E Review of New Players Handbook Posted at Acts of Geek...

[Sonny]

After getting the 13th Age Beastiary I want the 5E MM to be something on par with that book--but I know that's pretty unrealistic as it's hands down the best monster manual I've ever seen. I'm not saying the 5E MM is going to be sub-par (I'm really feeling optimistic about this edition), but the 13A Beastiary really spoiled me.

I think I would prefer the MM to be as close to the Hacklopedia of Beasts as possible since that's my high water mark for monster books in terms of flavor(both writing and art design)/content/quality.

 

[Ritorix]

It's been kinda funny watching as their site's review progresses. They have posted up parts 1 and 2 in addition to the "4.75 stars" art/layout review.

And now they are finding problems with the layout.

http://www.actsofgeek.com/2014/08/game-the-game-5th-edition-players-handbook-preview-part-2/

When they said :"Overall, I am seeing a combat system that wants to be exciting, dynamic, and narrative, but is just a variant of the 3.x rules.", it sounds like they haven't really payed attention over the last 2 years or so of playtesting. The gameplay style of 5e isnt really a surprise to anyone that has.

 

[MerricB]

It's been kinda funny watching as their site's review progresses. They have posted up parts 1 and 2 in addition to the "4.75 stars" art/layout review.

And now they are finding problems with the layout.

http://www.actsofgeek.com/2014/08/game-the-game-5th-edition-players-handbook-preview-part-2/

When they said :"Overall, I am seeing a combat system that wants to be exciting, dynamic, and narrative, but is just a variant of the 3.x rules.", it sounds like they haven't really payed attention over the last 2 years or so of playtesting. The gameplay style of 5e isnt really a surprise to anyone that has.

What I'm really amused by is this bit:
"Cover is not an advantage, it is +2/ +5 or can’t be targeted."

It doesn't read the way he wants it to. Because, the way English works, most people would consider an increased AC an advantage.

(Compare: "Cover is not handled by the advantage/disadvantage rules, instead it gives a +2 or +5 to AC or makes them impossible to target.")

That the reviewer is only just playing 5E for the first time now when the Starter Set has been out for about a month... not good.

Cheers!

 

[Evenglare]

I think I'd prefer more ease of use. Give me a 200 page PDF with all those pics removed. They're nice to look at once and then they're just a waste of paper.

I'm guessing you loved the pages upon pages of nothing but text in 4e with powers? For the love of god do not listen to this guy wizards. The art is BEAUTIFUL.

 

[variant]

He hasn't played it at all. I got to the point where he says the combat chapter has no mention of reach before I started to wonder if he even read what he's trying to review. It's in the second paragraph under Melee Attacks.

 

[variant]

I'm guessing you loved the pages upon pages of nothing but text in 4e with powers? For the love of god do not listen to this guy wizards. The art is BEAUTIFUL.

The issue with pages of upon pages of 4e powers was not a lack of art. It was that they were all a bland uniform layout with really poor decisions in a style that made them hard to read.

There are pages upon pages in the Basic Rules, including spells, without any art. With the layout, fonts, use of bold and italics, and charts, it isn't harmed by lacking art at all.

I am really curious who thought it was a good idea when creating the layout of 4e to have dark block headers with white text and alternating fading blocks with black text, all on a white page.

 

[Dire Bare]

I think I'd prefer more ease of use. Give me a 200 page PDF with all those pics removed. They're nice to look at once and then they're just a waste of paper.

Yeah, that would sell a lot of copies. When will WotC learn?!?!

 

[Dire Bare]

Doesn't really seem fair to call this article a review -- it's just a physical description of the book and a couple of photos from the inside.

Yeah, there are now three articles on the book, the "review" and a two-part "preview". All would be more accurately labeled, "First Impressions with Strong Bias Going In".

At one point the author(s) complain when converting their Planescape tiefling that they have to lose their original characters unique, randomly rolled look and accept the unified look of 4th and now 5th edition. Facepalm. So, ah, you can't just keep your oldschool fluff? You are being forced to change the look of your character to make it properly 5th edition? Jeesh.

 

[Chaltab]

The issue with pages of upon pages of 4e powers was not a lack of art. It was that they were all a bland uniform layout with really poor decisions in a style that made them hard to read.

There are pages upon pages in the Basic Rules, including spells, without any art. With the layout, fonts, use of bold and italics, and charts, it isn't harmed by lacking art at all.

I am really curious who thought it was a good idea when creating the layout of 4e to have dark block headers with white text and alternating fading blocks with black text, all on a white page.

Eh, it's a give and take. The pages are certainly not visually appealing, but I think the layout is really good when it comes to readability. You have the name, the level, the fluff, and all the important information clearly separated and easy to reference. You don't have the huge text boxes of Gygaxian prose that you saw in AD&D or the scratch-paper patterns of the 3.5 books muddying the text. It's not pretty but it gets the job done.

 

[BoldItalic]

Why is there a photo of a scantily-clad cosplayer with dyed hair and an oversized foam longbow on the same page as the Sage background?

Because she is a sage. She's a post-doc metallurgist. Notice the arrows? Molydenum steel, case-hardened tips.

You weren't looking at the arrows, were you?