things i like/dislike about PHB2 - a sort of review

[evilbob]

Plane Sailing: I like your mini-review a lot. You said some good things that I left out. I especially agree that it'd have been nice if they could have developed more monster races, and your Bard comment is dead-on. I barely managed to read most of the background trait information, so I had forgotten how bad it was.

I still think my baseline evaluation is correct: it's not worth the price tag, and you can save yourself the cash and just get the CB instead.

Oh, and Plane Sailing: I'll put my warforged or minotaur fighters against your dwarf any day.

 

[Wormwood]

Just curious... what were you expecting it to be? What should there have been in addition? Take out the combat chapter, and you just described the PHB Uno.

I have to admit that I'm kinda curious myself.

PHB2 is precisely what I both expected and wanted: a second player's handbook that adds to the options of the first book without changing the core of the game.

 

[Obryn]

Huh! I am just absolutely entranced by the PHB2. I think it's the best supplement to date... Here are my own thoughts...

(1) The new races. I love Devas. Lovelovelove them. I think they have a wonderful flavor, and they can really shine with a few feats. They do make pretty excellent clerics, since they get a Wisdom bonus. They make outstanding Invokers, too. They don't make great Paladins, which I'm fine with - Devas are different than Aasimar, now. They're not just reskinned & renamed.

I think the Gnome seems pretty good, though I still don't know how many we'll see. I expect to see a few feylocks, and a few bards, and maybe a wizard or two... but they're about as useful to me as they were before.

Goliaths are fine. They do nothing for me, but a Str/Con race isn't nearly as overpowering in 4e as it was in 3e. I think they'll make great Barbarians and Wardens, but I don't know if they're the best choice for anything else. Although Str/Con seems great for a fighter, I don't think their feat selection encourages this.

Half-Orcs are pretty cool. I'd rather they were Str/Wis, but I like that they make excellent brutal & rattling rogues now. Their class flavor is geared towards barbarians, and I think, much like Tieflings and Infernal Warlocks, with a few feats they'll work out great.

Shifters have never, ever done anything for me. I didn't care for them in Eberron, and I don't love them now. They look like a reasonably well-balanced race, but ... eh.

(2) The new classes.

Now this is where I think the PHB2 shines. These classes seem very well-balanced with the PHB1 classes, from my scan-through. They are also a lot tighter - that is, they are well-designed and very thematic. I didn't find any of them to be (as Plane Sailing said) fill-in-the-grid classes... All of them feel pretty unique.

Avengers are a very cool little class. I don't think they're Paladins+, since they have a very different shtick. Avengers fight and pursue their enemies and more or less ignore the rest of the party. Paladins work as a team, lock down foes, and enhance their party. I really like the flavor, and their balance seems right on - that is, they hit frequently with the right tactics, but do less damage than other strikers.

I have a Barbarian in my current game. Yes, they do frightening damage output, but I think it's fairly even with Rangers. They do a little more damage than archer rangers, but then again, archer rangers aren't in the thick of combat. They do more damage than two-weapon rangers when they hit, but have a lower chance of hitting. Also, countering the high damage are their low defenses. Raging barbarians will have a low-to-middling AC and a good Fortitude defense, but be weak on the others. Thaneborn Barbarians could actually do pretty well, but they also do less damage. The barbarian in my game drops almost every fight.

Bards look very cool. I can't give too much feedback as of yet, but I like how they worked in the skill mastery flavor, and the high versatility. I also like that they can easily rely mainly on their swords instead of blowing things up with sound.

Druids look solid. They also look pretty complex. Again, I want to see one of these guys in play before I give a final verdict, but I think their wild-shape ability was handled very, very well. Their powers are pretty convincing, and they look to be an excellent and versatile controller.

Invokers are probably my favorite of the new classes. I think of old-testament-style wrath-of-god type prophets and magicians, calling down the wrath of their god and summoning angels to their aid. They do seem to have some better control than Wizards, which is odd, but Wizards do significantly more damage over the course of their levels. I mean, even mid-level Invoker powers are only doing single dice of damage. I was worried they would overshadow Wizards, but from what I can tell, my worries were misplaced.

Shamans, I'm still waiting on. I like the idea of mainly operating through their spirit companion - it's like acting at a distance. I have never been very into the whole shamanic-type classes in the past, but this is the first I'd consider playing.

Sorcerors do, indeed, seem to be what Warlocks probably should have been. Their damage output is very impressive. Again, I would like to see one in play before I declare them basically Warlocks+ and relegate Warlocks to the dustbin of useless classes. In particular, I think many comparisons are ignoring how impressive the Warlock pact boons can get. Classes aren't just defined by their damage output.

Finally, I love Wardens from what I've seen of them so far. They are an unusual class, but I think they're a good role... I mean, "protector of nature" has been a fantasy trope for quite some time, and Wardens lock into it very well. I really like their Forms - they're like Barbarian Rages, but with some excellent flavor. They look to be tougher than fighters, but a little less sticky and dealing a little less damage. Again, I don't see them as a fill-in-the-grid class. I don't think it was a class anyone was really asking for, but now that we have it, I like it.

(3) Feats...

Well, I houseruled Expertise, but since that's about the only thing I have a major problem with, I consider the book a win. As expected, the other feats are mainly for the new classes and races, but there are a few sweet ones that I think anyone could take and be happy with.

(4) Miscellany

I love the Racial paragon paths. I particularly love the Human and Dragonborn paths, but the others are pretty good, too. About the only one I'm uncertain of is the poor Gnome... I don't know what class it would work for, to be honest. Anyway, I've been a fan of racial classes since Arcana Unearthed, so this short section is one of my favorites.

Equipment? Eh. It mostly fills in the blanks for the new classes, as expected. I'm glad Bards have songblades, but I hope AV2 or Dragon articles can give them some choice with them.

Rules? A couple of pretty big changes, including the Stealth errata and a little sentence stuck in the Saving Throws section that I think was badly needed. Still, not bad.

Overall, I'd give the book a solid A. It's one of my favorites so far. You could easily play many campaigns without it, but it's a good supplement and it does exactly what it is supposed to do.

-O

 

[Hjorimir]

I guess I’m weird, because I’m really quite happy with the book.

Races
As far as races go, the only one that I didn’t really care for was the gnome (but I’ve never really liked them anyway). I didn’t care for the goliath in 3e, but I find that I like their 4e interpretation much more (though I couldn’t really tell you why).

I don’t think that the deva are supposed to “fit” in the world, which is one of the most defining things about them, which is something that can feed great role-playing potential if you embrace it (my personal take is that churches will take a huge interest in any deva wandering around…which god [or gods] does the deva serve?...why is it here?...did we do something wrong?)

I’ve already had a player call me to tell me how cool the deva is.

Expertise
Yeah, I think this is errata disguised as a feat. I plan to remove the feats and just add a flat +1 bonus on all attack rolls at 5th, 15th, and 25th for everybody.

Strikers
Breaking down the classes, there are 3 controllers, 4 defenders, 4 leaders, and 6 strikers available. I am of the opinion that the best 5-man group (balance wise) is: 1 controller, 1 defender, 1 leader, and 2 strikers and that fits in perfectly with what we have so far.

Are all of the classes perfectly balanced? Of course not, though I am withholding judgment until we have our hands on Arcane Power, Divine Power, and Primal Power. I fully expected some of this early on.

Weird Race/Class Combinations
I can’t agree with your assessment of dwarves; Dwarven Resilience and Stand Your Ground make them (still) one of the very best fighters in game. They also make perfectly fine clerics (especially if you grab some armor proficiency feats).

It’s Light
Considering that PHB1 also includes all of the basic rules, did anybody really expect that PHB2 would come up with a similar page count? There is an assumption, one that I’m willing to accept apparently, that the first three books give us more bang for our buck, but subsequent books will have a higher price point (something that was true with 3e as well).

Recommendation
I’m on the other side of the fence; I’d definitely recommend the book if you’re a DM or a player interested in playing one of the classes therein. While DDI is great (and I’m a subscriber), I don’t think it replaces a book at the table.

 

[Daniel D. Fox]

A lot of the stuff in the PHB2 stinks of SPLAT, particularly the new striker classes. Barbarians and Sorcerers completely outweigh the Rogue in practically every way, shape and form.

The races don't really appeal to me, but I was never a fan of demiraces anyhow.

I dig the Invoker and the Bard. I don't really care for the other classes.

 

[Baumi]

Just wanted to comment on the new Backgrounds ... I love the generic Approch! 8D

It's now so easy to create a thematical Group (all are thiefs) without restricting the class and roleplaing-shy players will have a reason to define their background more. Also you can easily insert unusual parts to your character like be a merenary wizard (occupation military) and can now get endurance as class skill without paying a feat for it.

 

[Jack99]

Well, as I wrote in my review, I really like it - in fact, I think it's the best thing since sliced bread. Maybe our expectations are just (extremely) different, but I honest to god do not understand some of your complaints. But then again, the parts below make me wonder if we even play the same game.

Additionally, they changed the stat boosts to Int and Wis (instead of Cha and Wis), so while they work great as the two divine classes specially made for those stats in the PHB2, they are not really a good race for the divine classes from the PHB1. In particular, they make horrible paladins, and they mostly make good ...wizards? That doesn't really jive well with their concept, I think.

So, +2 wis is bad for a cleric? Sure, there might be better choices, but saying a +2 wis race is bad as cleric. ><

Expertise Feats

Welcome to 4th edition's first universal house rule. The Expertise feats are here and they are exactly as bad as everyone thought they would be. I'll be curious to see how or if they fix this in the future (perhaps they grant an "expertise" bonus so they at least don't stack with themselves, thus fixing the most serious abuse), but until then it seems like most if not all DMs will be adjusting this rule in at least some small way. And the worst part is the bad taste in the back of your mouth that this really is just a cobbled-together patch for some poor math skills a year ago. It's just so obvious - why didn't they pick another way? Yuck, yuck, yuck.

Stack with themselves? You clearly have misunderstood something about the rules.

Strikers

There were 3 striker classes in the PHB1 and there are 3 more in the PHB2. Clearly, the devs like strikers. It's a shame, then, that the sorcerer and the barbarian are so incredibly powerful that there's really almost reason to go back to the PHB1 for a striker. Ruthless and Brutal rogues are the only striker builds from the PHB1 that can hold a candle to this new batch. The poor warlock in particular really got it hard: sorcerers have the same power source, one of the same primary stats, and they are better than warlocks in every way. They do more damage, have better defenses, are more "controllery" with more AOE spells, and they have only one primary attack stat instead of two. I honestly cannot come up with a reason that anyone should ever play a warlock ever again. In fact, I can't come up with a reason that anyone playing one now shouldn't respec to a sorcerer immediately. Rangers at least have one good reason to still exist: so you can multiclass and get Blade Cascade. But otherwise there is not much reason to mess with them, either.

Again, raw damage is not everything. Besides, I think you are vastly underestimating just how much punishment the Barbarian takes when in there, in the thick of it. Although if there is a class that is "broken", it's probably the barbarian. But only time will tell.

Weird Race/Class Combinations

Dwarves made terrible everythings in the PHB1. Well ok, there's a case to be made for dwarves making fighters that aren't that bad (thanks to a couple required feats), but there's a long (and growing) list of races that make better ones.

I stopped reading at dwarves make terrible everything - you are clearly not playing 4e.

Cheers

 

[Kask]

I did this for Dungeon Delve and I liked how it turned out, so I'm doing it again for the Players Handbook 2.

Thanks. I was hesitant to buy it sight unseen over the net. I'll wait till the major book chains in my area decide to carry in store so I can view it for myself.

 

[avin]

It's me or Devas are inspired on Zenythri (MMII3.0)?

 

[Mouseferatu]

Wow. I actually really dig the vast majority of this book.

I don't consider invokers or wardens to be "grid-fillers" at all; in fact, the most complete character I had when first reading through the book was a warden.

I think the races make for interesting "fringe" characters. I wouldn't want to play or run in a game where everyone chose a race from this book--unless it was a campaign specifically designed to get away from D&D's tropes--but as rarities in a world occupied mostly by the PHB1 races, I love 'em.

(And I'm actually really psyched about some of the paragon paths, more so than I was about most of the PPs in the PHB1.)

Not everything in the book is perfect, of course, and I'll have to see some of the classes in play before I can tell if I think the "power creep" issues with the strikers are genuine, but overall? I'm happy with the purchase, and that's from someone who does have an Insider subscription.

And I'm surprised at the people objecting to "deva." You folks do know that it's a real word, with real, legitimate pronunciation, as opposed to "aasimar" which was just made up, yes?