• NOW LIVE! Into the Woods--new character species, eerie monsters, and haunting villains to populate the woodlands of your D&D games.

D&D 5E What belongs in a $50 PHB?

Quantity of the content is important, and fairly easy to define. The PHB alone should have enough material to cover all the iconic character concepts and to generate a large array of different characters within each class. Ideally IMO it should allow at least couple of years of regular (e.g. 1/week) gaming without getting the feeling that you're running short of character options.

I think 3e fell slightly short of that, most notably there weren't enough feats in the core for enough variations on non-martial characters, so that players who didn't want to boost combat often just didn't know which feats to pick. The first wave of 3.0 splatbooks took care of that with plenty of feats, but in retrospective if the 3.0 PHB had had ~10 extra pages of feats and ~2 extra pages of clerical domains it would have been perfect.

Now the stakes are high on number of subclasses, that's going to make a fair amount of difference. I'd say that with 4-5 subclasses each class and double that many (8-10) for Clerics and Wizards would be a safe number. But my feeling is that the designers think subclasses are the new prestige classes, i.e. what allowed them to sell hundreds of splatbooks in 3e, and will be conservative with their number in the PHB (2-3 each class) exactly so that players will need to buy more supplements. There is also a problem with feats, even worse than in the 3.0 PHB since feats are bigger and thus it's harder to design lots of them, but the point is that at the moment if you don't want combat feats or multiclassing feats, your choice is really very limited.

---

Quality of content is the other side of the problem...

I am ok with spending up to 200e to start playing a new edition, but then I expect the following:

(1) errata-free books: I'd rather spend 70e for such a PHB than saving money but having errors
(2) not see a revision of the edition for at least 5 years
(3) high-profile, inspiring artwork that doesn't indulge in violence or sexism
(4) smooth writing for God's sake... write the game rules for normal people, not for wanna-be scientists (i.e. avoid jargon or rules that have to be deciphered and cross-referenced all the time to be understood) but neither for retarted (i.e. don't take half a page to describe what you can describe understandably in one sentence)

With regard to point (3), the 3e core books were fine. I'd like to see artwork that would satisfy ENWorld's "Eric's Granma" rules. It doesn't have to follow victorian standards of pruderie, but at least be sensible and family-oriented. And it doesn't have to be A LOT of art. Rather save some space and money by putting less or smaller pictures, than putting bad pictures.
 

log in or register to remove this ad

Quantity ... <snip>

Quality... < snip>

Those are good lists. Just a couple of things:

(1) errata-free books: I'd rather spend 70e for such a PHB than saving money but having errors

I think expecting it to be completely errata-free is unrealistic, but I do agree they should endeavour to do better than they have previously. I've posted more on that elsewhere, so won't dwell on it further here.

(2) not see a revision of the edition for at least 5 years

D&D has never actually gone more than 6 years without some sort of new version of the core rulebooks (although in the case of 1st Ed that was just new cover art), and the longest WotC have managed is 5 years with 3.5e. (Pathfinder, of course, is just about to hit 5 years.)

That being the case, I would be very surprised if 5e didn't have an update within 5 years, be that 5.5e, "5e Essentials", or 6e. (Or, rather, I would expect an update within 5 years... or never.)
 

D&D has never actually gone more than 6 years without some sort of new version of the core rulebooks (although in the case of 1st Ed that was just new cover art), and the longest WotC have managed is 5 years with 3.5e. (Pathfinder, of course, is just about to hit 5 years.)
It should be noted that the 3.0e PHB came out August 2000, the 3.5e PHB came out July 2003. The 4e PHB came out June 2008. 3.0 lasted 2 years, 11 months. 3.5e was 4 years, 11 months.

Meanwhile, assuming August 2014 is the release date of D&D Next's PHB that means that 4e lasted 6 years 2 months. Which actually makes 4e the longest lasting WOTC edition.

This amuses me greatly given how many people complained that WOTC keeps releasing editions quicker and quicker when it's actually the other way around.
 

It should be noted that the 3.0e PHB came out August 2000, the 3.5e PHB came out July 2003. The 4e PHB came out June 2008. 3.0 lasted 2 years, 11 months. 3.5e was 4 years, 11 months.

Meanwhile, assuming August 2014 is the release date of D&D Next's PHB that means that 4e lasted 6 years 2 months. Which actually makes 4e the longest lasting WOTC edition.

This amuses me greatly given how many people complained that WOTC keeps releasing editions quicker and quicker when it's actually the other way around.
To be fair, you gotta consider Essentials.
 

To be fair, you gotta consider Essentials.
Essentials is NOT another edition. It doesn't change the rules at all. It explicitly says in those books that these are just some new alternate classes for 4e D&D, completely compatible and the exact same game as the books that came before it. It is just the 4e rules collected with alternate versions of the core classes made easier to understand for new players.

I know people online like to paint Essentials as somehow a new edition but WOTC says it isn't, the book itself says it isn't and the rules are identical(other than 2 or 3 really small changes that were considered to be errata to the 4e PHB).

If we consider it to be a new edition of the game then we really need to consider Complete Warrior a new edition of 3.5e.
 

It should be noted that the 3.0e PHB came out August 2000, the 3.5e PHB came out July 2003. The 4e PHB came out June 2008. 3.0 lasted 2 years, 11 months. 3.5e was 4 years, 11 months.

Meanwhile, assuming August 2014 is the release date of D&D Next's PHB that means that 4e lasted 6 years 2 months. Which actually makes 4e the longest lasting WOTC edition.

This amuses me greatly given how many people complained that WOTC keeps releasing editions quicker and quicker when it's actually the other way around.

I was quite careful to say "some sort of new version", rather than talking about a revision or similar. As such, there's Essentials to consider in the mix.

And while you can certainly argue that Essentials isn't a revision (in the way that 3.5e certainly is), you can't argue that it's less significant than either the 1st Ed or 2nd Ed equivalents, the former of which really was just a new cover while the second was a new coat of paint - in both cases, other than incorporating errata, neither made any rules modifications.

(But for the argument over whether Essentials is 4.5e in disguise or not... yeah, I'm not getting into that one!)
 

Here's what u would like to have in the PHB:

1. Intro to roll playing.
2. Character creation with rolling 3d6 being the default and everything else being optional.
3. Classes: bard, barbarian, cleric, fighter, wizard, ranger, paladin, warlock and sorcerer.
4. Background.
5. Feats.
6. Optional skill system with meat on it.
7. How to play section divided into combat, exploration and social chapters, each chapter will have defaults and optional rules for those who wants them.
8. Rules for hiring henchmen and mercenaries, running a buissnes and building a stronghold in a campaign chapter, for those who love old school flavor of the game.
9. Spells.
10. Great art.

A big and through index, and most important I want to book to have white space on the side to write my house rules in the book.

For a 50$ book I also want to get a coupon that let's me get one dragon ride for free in a place of my choosing.

Warder
 

I was quite careful to say "some sort of new version", rather than talking about a revision or similar. As such, there's Essentials to consider in the mix.
I still don't consider essentials to even be a "new version". It's a splat book for 4e. It just happens to contain the rules. Otherwise we'd have to assume 3.5e was revamped when the Rules Compendium came out.

And while you can certainly argue that Essentials isn't a revision (in the way that 3.5e certainly is), you can't argue that it's less significant than either the 1st Ed or 2nd Ed equivalents, the former of which really was just a new cover while the second was a new coat of paint - in both cases, other than incorporating errata, neither made any rules modifications.
We really can't consider cover changes and reprints with errata "changes" per se. There were about 2 or 3 reprints of the 3.5e PHB each of which had errata incorporated into it. If just putting errata into a book counts as a change then 3.5e didn't last that long either.

The only real safe way to measure a real change is when the PHB for a new edition comes out.
 

I still don't consider essentials to even be a "new version". It's a splat book for 4e. It just happens to contain the rules. Otherwise we'd have to assume 3.5e was revamped when the Rules Compendium came out.

It's a new version of the core rules - you could play Essentials (4e) with just the "DM's Kit", "Monster Vault" and one of the "Heroes of..." books. You couldn't play 3.5e with just the RC.

We really can't consider cover changes and reprints with errata "changes" per se.

No indeed. So we can agree that Essentials was a much more significant change than the "Orange spine" 1st Ed books or the "Black cover" 2nd Ed ones?
 

Essentials is NOT another edition. It doesn't change the rules at all.

No, sorry, if you count D&D3.5, you have to count Essentials. The crisis of Essentials was precisely that it was /not/ a complete revision. The rules did not change, but the introduction of new classes constructed in a totally different paradigm while maintaining the expectation of compatibility was at least as disruptive to ongoing campaigns as D&D3.5.

Any dungeon master who ran Encounters at that time will tell you that it dramatically changed the way the game was played and adjudicated, with old players sticking to the PHBs and new players coming in with the Heroes books. Little effort was put into making the new material "speak" to the old material.

I think most home groups probably ignored Essentials, and those few who adopted it probably did so completely, putting aside the older PHBs. And it's true that if you completely ignored the Essentials core books, you could continue to use later D&D4 supplements with the original core books, and if you converted /entirely/ to Essentials, you could still use older supplements with the new core books. You couldn't really do that with D&D3.0 and 3.5.

But if you tried to (or had to) mix the two presentations of the system at your table, it was painfully obvious that Essentials was not the same old stuff.

The only real safe way to measure a real change is when the PHB for a new edition comes out.


And if a revision does away with the PHB, as Essentials did? What then?

 

Into the Woods

Remove ads

Top