D&D 5E (2014) Review of New Players Handbook Posted at Acts of Geek...

[steeldragons]

Oh look! A druid with branch/antlers coming out of her head...again...how original.

The conditions illo's are great. I hope there's a lot more "see/envision this as it's happening" type of art.

 

[Dausuul]

Second part of the review is up and... wow. What a worthless review. Not because it disagrees with me, but because it contains hardly any explanation of its assorted complaints, most of which seem to boil down to "I'm looking for reasons to complain about 5E." For example:

• "Advantage and Disadvantage seem cool, but potentially subject to powergaming abuse." Meaning what? How would they be subject to abuse? Do you have an actual abuse in mind?
• "There are multiple attacks again." Okay. Yes. There are. Just like every edition ever, including 4E. And?
• "Grappling is still… grappling." Why, yes, there are grapple rules. They're a lot like 4E's grabbing rules except they use skills, which is a nice touch. What is your specific complaint?
• "In addition, the combat chapter, which is all of 10 pages long, has no mention of [reach]." Okay, unless there's stuff in the Basic Rules that's missing from the PHB, this is just flat wrong. Reach is mentioned under "Melee Attacks." It doesn't get a lengthy treatment, because nothing in the combat rules does, because the combat rules are, as you say, 10 pages long.
• "Opportunity attacks, disengaging is still a thing, and seems vague and nebulous, especially considering no grid, and ripe for arguments." Vague how? What's an example of ambiguity in these rules? They seem pretty clear to me.
• "...What about crawl?" Hey, you have finally succeeded in pointing up a specific issue that really exists. The "Climbing, Swimming, and Crawling" section has no rules for crawling. You have to look in the "Prone" section, which should not be necessary. Congratulations.
• "Oh, mounted combat has made a return. Joy." I can't tell if this is an actual expression of joy, or sarcasm. If it's sarcasm, it's beyond stupid. Nobody's forcing you to get on a horse, but D&D is a combat-heavy RPG in a medieval setting. Not having rules for mounted combat would be a glaring omission.
• "Cover is not an advantage, it is +2/+5 or can’t be targeted. More room for arguing." About what?

Not going to waste time reading Part 3. A single post from Palladion on his "Finally" thread is more informative than this entire review--especially considering that the review doesn't cover anything we haven't already seen from the Basic Rules.

 

[tuxgeo]

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?

That appears to be an illustration of a character with the "Outlander" background, which comes alphabetically right before the "Sage" background.
The page is two columns wide, so I would guess that the Outlander ends in the left-hand column and the Sage ends in the right-hand column, with the illustration in the lower right-hand corner.

 

[KarinsDad]

I didn't see page 1 or 3 listed, so here are all three of the current ones:

http://www.actsofgeek.com/2014/08/game-the-game-5th-edition-players-handbook-preview-part-1/

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

http://www.actsofgeek.com/2014/08/game-the-game-5th-edition-players-handbook-part-3/

 

[Libramarian]

Terrible review. It's just notes made while flipping through the book, some of which are incorrect or are just inane. At no point does he bring his impressions together into anything resembling a rational thought. I know that writing standards have slipped in the age of internet content but this is outrageous. I think this is the worst review for anything I have ever read.

 

[Crothian]

Terrible review. It's just notes made while flipping through the book, some of which are incorrect or are just inane. At no point does he bring his impressions together into anything resembling a rational thought. I know that writing standards have slipped in the age of internet content but this is outrageous. I think this is the worst review for anything I have ever read.

I don't think the purpose of the review it to review 5e but to be first and get as much traffic on their site.

 

[Lalato]

Are there more pictures in the other parts of the review. I kind of zone out if there aren't any pics.

And now that I know it's not really worth reading, the only thing of value is the pics anyway.

 

[mips42]

I don't think the purpose of the review it to review 5e but to be first and get as much traffic on their site.

I read all three parts and the general impression I got was that they were 'Meh' on pretty much the whole book except for the overall layout.
In part three they say that the only creatures in the PHB are 'low level' and that levelling would 'be a grind'. That's not the point of the PHB. Those creatures are there for stats as familiars, as was touched upon earlier in this thread (and I believe the PHB).
The only thing I've seen so far in the statements about the PHB that *might* irritate me (if it had not already been addressed) is that the Character sheet is not a tear out. With the blank PDF's already being available to print as-needed, this is a non-issue for anyone who has access to the internet and, even then, you could take the PHB to a copy shop and copy it out of the book.

This 'review' is, in my opinion, a 3 part version of a 'First!' comment and, therefore, I put very little stock in it as a Review.

 

[Jeff Carlsen]

It's worth noting that the previews were written by Barack Blackburn, whereas the review was written by Michael Gendreau.

So the opinions are going to differ.

 

[bolo__]

I really like the condition sketches.

Thaumaturge.

I'm preeety sure that dwarf isn't blinded, just BLIND drunk!

It's worth noting that the previews were written by Barack Blackburn, whereas the review was written by Michael Gendreau.

So the opinions are going to differ.

Opinions and quality apparently.