What Is the Weakest 5e Book?

[the_brazenburn]

So, in your opinion, what is the weakest 5e official WoTC publication? Both manuals and adventures are welcome, as long as they are official.

I think the weakest book is SCAG. It was decent, but all the player options became irrelevant due to XGtE.

I couldn't pick a worst adventure, I love all of them (yes, including Tyranny of Dragons).

[Waterdeep Merch]

So, in your opinion, what is the weakest 5e official WoTC publication? Both manuals and adventures are welcome, as long as they are official.

I think the weakest book is SCAG. It was decent, but all the player options became irrelevant due to XGtE.

I couldn't pick a worst adventure, I love all of them (yes, including Tyranny of Dragons).

Speaking of ToD, Hoard of the Dragon Queen was pretty bad. After how impressed I was with Mines of Phandelver, I was really excited for the next big 5e adventure. Instead, I got a linear mess that expects an unusual amount of foresight by the players with weird difficulty spikes and landmine decisions that will likely get your character messily killed. And the story just wasn't good enough to overcome these flaws.

[Luccan]

I'd say SCAG, not because of XGtE or anything like that, but because much of it is specific to one setting. While it's a popular setting, XGtE and Volo's are arguably more universally applicable or at least have more that is universally applicable in them. I don't think SCAG is bad, but it's not as useful to those not playing in FR, thus making it the weakest simply because it cuts out a fair portion of the market.

[jas61292]

Clearly the weakest is the PHB. Mine doesn't even have the strength to hold onto it's own pages.


But seriously, I'd say it has to be one of the adventures. And of the ones I've played, I'd have to go with HotDQ. Poorly balanced, for well documented reasons, and far too linear for my taste.

[2D8HP]

My first instinct is the SCAG except.. when I think about it, while I made an Archeologist Background (from Tomb of Annihilation) PC, I haven't played it yet, and while I've planned to try the Gloom Stalker and/or the Scout subclasses from Xanathar's (in a campaign that I don't think the DM is going to re-start), the Swashbuckler from the SCAG is the only post PHB content I've actually used, and I loved playing the Swashbuckler subclass, and without the SCAG I'd either have to wait a year for it to come out in Xanthar's, or go through the hassle of trying to read a PDF on my phone, and convince my DM to accept UA content, so for me it was worth it, also the SCAG is a great clue on making "custom backgrounds".

Most of the Adventures have some player content, I think my favorite Backgrounds are the Anthropologist and Archeologist in Tomb of Annihilation, though I remember that Out of the Abyss had neat player options, but I don't remember the details.

Since I remember almost nothing from the Tyranny of Dragons series, I guess that I'll pick them.

[ad_hoc]

I quite liked HotDQ.

I think the award must go to RoT. It's both small and hard to play as it requires success in HotDQ.

[Biggstick]

My vote is for HotDQ. It's a slog to get through and just didn't bring very much imo.

[mephnick]

My vote is for HotDQ. It's a slog to get through and just didn't bring very much imo.

Currently playing through it. Agreed. Definitely need a DM willing to heavily edit it and ours..isn't.

[the_brazenburn]

Speaking of ToD, Hoard of the Dragon Queen was pretty bad. After how impressed I was with Mines of Phandelver, I was really excited for the next big 5e adventure. Instead, I got a linear mess that expects an unusual amount of foresight by the players with weird difficulty spikes and landmine decisions that will likely get your character messily killed. And the story just wasn't good enough to overcome these flaws.


Clearly the weakest is the PHB. Mine doesn't even have the strength to hold onto it's own pages.


But seriously, I'd say it has to be one of the adventures. And of the ones I've played, I'd have to go with HotDQ. Poorly balanced, for well documented reasons, and far too linear for my taste.


I quite liked HotDQ.

I think the award must go to RoT. It's both small and hard to play as it requires success in HotDQ.


My vote is for HotDQ. It's a slog to get through and just didn't bring very much imo.


Currently playing through it. Agreed. Definitely need a DM willing to heavily edit it and ours..isn't.

See, I think Tyranny of Dragons gets a bad rap. It was WoTC's first adventure manual for 5e, and so you can't honestly expect them to get it perfectly correct the first time around.

A lot of people say that it's to linear and railroad-y, but you are forgetting that running a sandbox dungeon can be extremely difficult for the new DMs who are likely to pick up a published adventure rather than making their own. Every other adventure in 5e is a sandbox. And don't forget, some railroading is kind of necessary. If your party decided to stay a month in Vallaki, Sloobludop, or the Sacred Stone monastery, you'd be pretty annoyed. ToD doesn't have that problem.

Are Hoard of the Dragon Queen and Rise of Tiamat the best adventures in D&D? No.
Are they the spawn of Asmodeus many on these forums claim they are? No, they are not.

[ad_hoc]

A lot of people say that it's to linear and railroad-y, but you are forgetting that running a sandbox dungeon can be extremely difficult for the new DMs who are likely to pick up a published adventure rather than making their own. Every other adventure in 5e is a sandbox. And don't forget, some railroading is kind of necessary. If your party decided to stay a month in Vallaki, Sloobludop, or the Sacred Stone monastery, you'd be pretty annoyed. ToD doesn't have that problem.

I actually found the individual chapters in HotDQ to be quite freeform. The storyline is on a linear path, but there are many solutions to most of the chapters.

HotDQ excelled at having an even mix of combat, social interaction, and exploration.

[KorvinStarmast]

I vote SCAG because the maps are incomplete, have annoying fold in them, and the font on the maps is miniscule. There, that's off my chest. Also, some of the half elf variants are right buggered.

[Wampyr]

Dungeon master’s guide is hands down the most useless.

[Whit]

Clearly the weakest is the PHB. Mine doesn't even have the strength to hold onto it's own pages.


But seriously, I'd say it has to be one of the adventures. And of the ones I've played, I'd have to go with HotDQ. Poorly balanced, for well documented reasons, and far too linear for my taste.

Don’t forget you can turn in your players handbook for a new one. Forgot the reason or rule about it but check

[Requilac]

Dungeon master’s guide is hands down the most useless.

I will have to second this. From a homebrewer’s perspective the guide to creating a monster from scratch was very useful, the stuff about building encounters is crucial and the magic items list is always helpful, but everything else in that book kind of sucks. About 10 pages of the book are filled with greatness, the other 200 something are all senseless tables.

[mephnick]

Dungeon master’s guide is hands down the most useless.

If people actually read it maybe more people would know how to run an adventuring day properly.

[Arkhios]

The one with least pages and weight is bound to deal less damage when used as a blunt object. Therefore, it's also the weakest.

[Requilac]

If people actually read it maybe more people would know how to run an adventuring day properly.

Most DMs I have met know how to run an advenuturing day, they just don’t want to slog the players with 8 different encounters before they take a long rest.

[ad_hoc]

Most DMs I have met know how to run an advenuturing day, they just don’t want to slog the players with 8 different encounters before they take a long rest.

Sounds like you and them don't know how to do it then.

[Requilac]

Sounds like you and them don't know how to do it then.

I know very well how I am supposed to do it. So do most of them. We just make the conscious decision not to. Because sometimes fun has to come before mechanical balance, and sending a bunch of enemies against the player meat grinder eight times a Day is just a boring waste of time. This is a roleplaying game, not a video game, I don’t want to spend that much time just going through the slaughterhouse with enemies up until the point where it is not even recognizable what brought them to do this in the first place.

[ad_hoc]

I know very well how I am supposed to do it. So do most of them. We just make the conscious decision not to. Because sometimes fun has to come before mechanical balance, and sending a bunch of enemies against the player meat grinder eight times a Day is just a boring waste of time. This is a roleplaying game, not a video game, I don’t want to spend that much time just going through the slaughterhouse with enemies up until the point where it is not even recognizable what brought them to do this in the first place.

Well first of all, you are showing that you don't understand by thinking that 8 encounters per long rest is the standard. 6-8 medium encounters. Now it could be less if there were hard or deadly in there. It could also just happen to be less on any given long rest (or more).

Secondly, this attitude is very confusing to me.

Why is 8 encounters in a long rest more of a slog than 8 encounters in 4 long rests? It seems to me that it would be less of a slog because of less time wasting for doing rests and being more engaged in the game because of some amount of challenge and uncertainty.

[Corsair14]

SCAG or anything with the location Forgotten Realms.

[SirGraystone]

I would go with SCAG too not so much because it's a bad book, but it's only really helpful for DM who want to create adventure in the Sword Coast of Forgotten Realms and doesn't have the previous edition source books.

[Vaz]

SCAG or anything with the location Forgotten Realms.

Guys, we have someone who wants to join the zeitgeist and be cool and hate on the Forgotten Realms over here! Can we let him in the cool people's club now?

[the_brazenburn]

Guys, we have someone who wants to join the zeitgeist and be cool and hate on the Forgotten Realms over here! Can we let him in the cool people's club now?

Give him his Ebberon-lover membership card.

[Willie the Duck]

Guys, we have someone who wants to join the zeitgeist and be cool and hate on the Forgotten Realms over here! Can we let him in the cool people's club now?

Mind you, over the whole of my life I'm totally guilty of this myself, but I feel like calling out others for "wanting to be in the 'cool people's club,'" is itself a little bit of a 'cool people's club.'


My first instinct is the SCAG except.. when I think about it, while I made an Archeologist Background (from Tomb of Annihilation) PC, I haven't played it yet, and while I've planned to try the Gloom Stalker and/or the Scout subclasses from Xanathar's (in a campaign that I don't think the DM is going to re-start), the Swashbuckler from the SCAG is the only post PHB content I've actually used, and I loved playing the Swashbuckler subclass, and without the SCAG I'd either have to wait a year for it to come out in Xanthar's, or go through the hassle of trying to read a PDF on my phone, and convince my DM to accept UA content, so for me it was worth it, also the SCAG is a great clue on making "custom backgrounds".

The Swashbuckler Archetype and the SCAG combat cantrips are really useful pieces of character creation crunch, because they allowed various character concepts (the 'two-weapon-fighting rogue' and the 'gish build leaning towards spellcaster') to really flourish. Much of the rest of it was a rehash/'where things stand now' update of the FR sourcebook material (and incomplete at that). Complaining about that, however, is like the complaints about the DMG above--the fact that you in particular already know/have the material does not make the book bad, just redundant for you. If I didn't have the 1e, 2e, and 3e FR world books/boxed sets, this would be information I wouldn't have. Of course I do, so I probably don't really need SCAG except for the crunch listed above. But that doesn't mean that the book is bad.

[strangebloke]

To me, anything that offers balanced character options can't be bad. I mean, SCAG contributes positive things towards several different character concepts. They've got an awesome cleric, a cool wizard school, an expansion to the totem barbarian, a couple good cantrips, a bunch of backgrounds... It's all good. I strongly dislike 'the status quo is god' Forgotten Realms, but hey, bladesingers are cool and you'll never convince me otherwise.

A bad book is something that offers nearly nothing and/or is horribly imbalanced and toxic. We haven't had anything really imbalanced or toxic come out, so I guess I'd pick a module, since those offer the least in terms of generic options for the rest of the game. Everyone seems to agree that HotDQ is the worst, and with my limited experience (I dropped in for a few caravan sessions) I would have to agree.

So yeah, HotDQ.

[Theodoxus]

The one with least pages and weight is bound to deal less damage when used as a blunt object. Therefore, it's also the weakest.

I know this is a sarcastic/joke reply, but it fits. I genuinely feel that Elemental Evil Companion's Guide is the weakest book. Especially since all the spells were rewritten in XGtE. (the fact that it's not a literal book but an ephemeral PDF definitely makes it the worst for being used as a blunt object....)

[Requilac]

Well first of all, you are showing that you don't understand by thinking that 8 encounters per long rest is the standard. 6-8 medium encounters. Now it could be less if there were hard or deadly in there. It could also just happen to be less on any given long rest (or more).

First off, let’s try to keep this from turning into an ad hominem conflict here, nothing good ever comes from those. I know very well how the system works, and I was entirely aware that the DMG said one should use less than 6-8 encounters per long rest if the encounters if they were of higher difficulty. And that is exactly what I do, I use less encounters but they are of a higher difficulty. Please do not assume that I am a fool here Ad Hoc, we are not arguing over who is the more ignorant one here.




Secondly, this attitude is very confusing to me.

Why is 8 encounters in a long rest more of a slog than 8 encounters in 4 long rests? It seems to me that it would be less of a slog because of less time wasting for doing rests and being more engaged in the game because of some amount of challenge and uncertainty.

8 encounters over the span of one long rest is more grueling than 8 encounters over the span 4 long rests not necessarily because the rests themselves, but mainly length of IRL time. Periods of time outside of combat, which are much harder to incorporate when you are constantly fighting, are not wastes of time they are valuable resources for roleplaying, character development and creative problem solving . There is more to D&D than just combat, and making it so that you are fighting a good eight different encounters every session puts combat in a position which becomes central. When that happens it is not even a roleplaying game, it is a video game or war game with an oddly vague rule set. And more combat does not equal tumor engagement, far from it in my experience. It does not bring challenge and uncertainty, it just bores people with the ridiculous redundancy of it. It is not quite so much the expectation of 8 fights per long rest which angers me, it is the absurd expectation of 8 fights per session

[strangebloke]

I know this is a sarcastic/joke reply, but it fits. I genuinely feel that Elemental Evil Companion's Guide is the weakest book. Especially since all the spells were rewritten in XGtE. (the fact that it's not a literal book but an ephemeral PDF definitely makes it the worst for being used as a blunt object....)

It's also free...

All depends on what you mean by weak. It's good value!

[ad_hoc]

First off, let’s try to keep this from turning into an ad hominem conflict here

I see that you also don't understand what the ad hominem fallacy is.


8 encounters over the span of one long rest is more grueling than 8 encounters over the span 4 long rests not necessarily because the rests themselves, but mainly length of IRL time.

That makes no sense.

[Requilac]

I see that you also don't understand what the ad hominem fallacy is.

...

You realize that by saying this, you are directing your arguement agiainst me instead of my position, right?



That makes no sense.

Okay, yes maybe I could have worded that a little bit better, so let me explain. What I am basically saying is that my problem is not against the concept of 8 encounters per long rest, and more about that I have a problem with 8 encounters per session, if that makes any more sense.



As much as I like this arguement, we don’t need to conduct it here and derail things any more than we already have. That was more of my fault than yours though. If you would like to continue it then maybe you could please create a seperate thread or send me a PM so that we may discuss it further. Unless of course you are done with me, then don’t feel the need to say anything.

[Theodoxus]

It's also free...

All depends on what you mean by weak. It's good value!

True... OP didn't specify any parameters for a definition of weak... cost to benefit could certainly be one, in which case the EEPG is second only to the starter rules. Though if one considers the Starter Rules -> PHB vs EEPG -> XGtE... which provides more value? I'd hazard EEPG, since as far as I remember, no where else are Genasi revisited...

[Corsair14]

Give him his Ebberon-lover membership card.

Spelljammer or Ravenloft actually. Never liked Ebberon even when it was new.

[the_brazenburn]

True... OP didn't specify any parameters for a definition of weak... cost to benefit could certainly be one, in which case the EEPG is second only to the starter rules. Though if one considers the Starter Rules -> PHB vs EEPG -> XGtE... which provides more value? I'd hazard EEPG, since as far as I remember, no where else are Genasi revisited...

Yes, I would regard price-to-usefulness ratio the standard for rules/expansion manuals. For adventures, it's more about price-to enjoyment ratio, and it cannot be denied that HotDQ and RoT were cheaper than most of the other adventures.

[bc56]

First off, let’s try to keep this from turning into an ad hominem conflict here, nothing good ever comes from those. I know very well how the system works, and I was entirely aware that the DMG said one should use less than 6-8 encounters per long rest if the encounters if they were of higher difficulty. And that is exactly what I do, I use less encounters but they are of a higher difficulty. Please do not assume that I am a fool here Ad Hoc, we are not arguing over who is the more ignorant one here.




8 encounters over the span of one long rest is more grueling than 8 encounters over the span 4 long rests not necessarily because the rests themselves, but mainly length of IRL time. Periods of time outside of combat, which are much harder to incorporate when you are constantly fighting, are not wastes of time they are valuable resources for roleplaying, character development and creative problem solving . There is more to D&D than just combat, and making it so that you are fighting a good eight different encounters every session puts combat in a position which becomes central. When that happens it is not even a roleplaying game, it is a video game or war game with an oddly vague rule set. And more combat does not equal tumor engagement, far from it in my experience. It does not bring challenge and uncertainty, it just bores people with the ridiculous redundancy of it. It is not quite so much the expectation of 8 fights per long rest which angers me, it is the absurd expectation of 8 fights per session

I have to inject my 2 cents into your argument.
The expectation is 8 fights of medium difficulty per adventuring day. Requilac is complaining that 8 fights per SESSION is too much.

The big thing is the distinction between Session and Adventuring day. An adventuring day can be less than a session or more than a session. You don't have to squeeze it onto one session. WOTC expects 4-hour sessions as a baseline (dunno why, people don't often have that much time). Therefore, they expect 8 fights for every 4 hours of play, IF a session = an adventuring day. Furthermore, the players complicate the issue. They take different amounts of time to do certain things, combat being a big one. You could have the players who are texting their friends during half the game and take an hour to finish a fight against some puny kobolds, or you could have my players with brutally efficient strategies, excellent teamwork, and nearly complete focus, who can blast through big enemies in a few minutes.

Because of this ambiguity, the best way to plan encounters per session is what works best for your table. If that's what the book says, great. If it's fewer, still great. Neither of you is wrong, now please stop arguing about it.


In the actual topic, of the books I have, I don't find any particularly useless. I'll throw my vote for EE, because that has never even been mentioned at my table, none of my players are interested in playing those races.

[Ronnocius]

I wasn't all that impressed with Sword Coast Adventurer's Guide. I haven't gotten Xanathar's Guide to Everything yet, but if it has stuff from Sword Coast Adventurer's Guide that would even further reduce its value in comparison with other books.
Also to the people saying the Dungeon Master's Guide is useless, I have no idea what you are talking about. It is probably the least important of the core rulebooks, but if you are a Dungeon Master it is still practically a necessity. Rules for traps, disease, poisons, siege equipment, chases, and a bunch of variant rules are in it, as well as tips for making adventures, NPCs, and campaign worlds. Not to mention without it you would have no idea what any of the other planes would look like (unless you had played previous editions).

[Marcloure]

I say Elemental Evil Player's Companion. Most of its spells and the Goliath are present in other books, and many times the book is just... forgettable? The spells aren't great. They are thematic, sure. But they lack heavily in power and many are high situational. Also, the races there aren't that great, I have never seen a genasi or deep gnome. Again, the Goliath is fine, but is also in Volo's. And the Aarakocra... well, is the Aarakocra.

At least SCAG has the Bladesinger and Green-flame Blade/Booming Blade.

[MxKit]

I actually love the Genasi. Like, a lot. But since they're the only real bright spot in the Elemental Evil Player's Companion, whereas every other book I can think of had at least a couple of bright spots, I'm going to cast another vote for EE.

The PHB is awesome. The Dungeon Master's Guide is great, the Monster Manual is great. I love the races and extra creatures in Volo's Guide, and Xanathar's Guide is great all around. All the published adventures are varying degrees of solid, and many of them have extra neat things like backgrounds.

And SCAG had a bunch of really neat examples of things, imo. What players might like to know about a setting. Different names for coins of various values. A calendar and holidays. Expanded non-human pantheons, and further descriptions of deities. Examples of how to tweak the backgrounds in the PHB to make new, unique ones. And that's not even getting into the new subraces, new subclasses and new/expanded options for existing subclasses, and new spells, all of which were imo solid and flavorful. (I am very sad that the Banneret and Long Death Monk didn't make it into Xanathar's Guide, and saddest of all that the Undying Patron didn't. :smallfrown:)

[Darth_Versity]

Can I be the breaker of tradition here and say Volo's Guide? For me, it's definitely the book I've used least. I think it's only been used for two things actually. I had an encounter with Darklings and a player made a Firbolg. That's it.

For me it also seems to have an identity crisis. Its clearly designed for dms, with monster lore and new creatures, but then shoves new player options in as well.

[Ronnocius]

Can I be the breaker of tradition here and say Volo's Guide? For me, it's definitely the book I've used least. I think it's only been used for two things actually. I had an encounter with Darklings and a player made a Firbolg. That's it.

For me it also seems to have an identity crisis. Its clearly designed for dms, with monster lore and new creatures, but then shoves new player options in as well.

That is definitely an unpopular opinion. I actually haven't gotten a huge amount of use out of it yet either (as far as I can remember the only thing I've used as a DM so far is the orc lore and the blade of Ilneval while running a campaign where the primary antagonists are orcs).
Still, in my opinion it is definitely worth the money I spent (~30$ CAD) because it has lore for some of the most common enemies, it has a bunch of new monsters, and of course the new player options.

[Marcloure]

Can I be the breaker of tradition here and say Volo's Guide? For me, it's definitely the book I've used least. I think it's only been used for two things actually. I had an encounter with Darklings and a player made a Firbolg. That's it.

For me it also seems to have an identity crisis. Its clearly designed for dms, with monster lore and new creatures, but then shoves new player options in as well.

That seems to be the pattern WotC will follow. The same happens with Xanathar's Guide, with new subclasses and DM tools. That is also true for SCAG. One reason is to sell the books for both players and DM. But also, so they don't have something that is like a "DMG II" or "PHB II".

[Luccan]

Can I be the breaker of tradition here and say Volo's Guide? For me, it's definitely the book I've used least. I think it's only been used for two things actually. I had an encounter with Darklings and a player made a Firbolg. That's it.

For me it also seems to have an identity crisis. Its clearly designed for dms, with monster lore and new creatures, but then shoves new player options in as well.

I suspect those player options were included because D&D has a long history of playable monsters. I'm not sure how 4e handled it, but in 3.X, many monsters could be ported straight into playable races (I believe the advice for previous editions was "Your player wants to be a dragon? Figure it out."). Not so for 5e, which clearly wants players and most NPCs to work somewhat differently. So if you want the more common playable monsters (Orcs, Goblinoids, Kobolds, Yuan-ti), you have to provide playable stats.

As for the others, well, it was nice to get more "standard" races that weren't just subraces of elves and dwarves.

Edit:

That seems to be the pattern WotC will follow. The same happens with Xanathar's Guide, with new subclasses and DM tools. That is also true for SCAG. One reason is to sell the books for both players and DM. But also, so they don't have something that is like a "DMG II" or "PHB II".

Also, this. There's been indications they want to avoid "DM only" books, outside the core rules. Even if SCAG was mostly fluff, there was still solid player crunch in it.

[Requilac]

My main issue with the DMG is not so much that is completely useless, it does indeed have useful information, the thing is that the content in it there feels like it is giving you information that you already know. It feels more like a “DMing for dummies” type of book than an actual guide. For example, it is useful to know how to create a setting, but I could perfectly make a setting without ever looking in the book. It is helpful to know what the planes are like, but if I am playing a module which heavily involves one than events in the module while tell me everything I need to know, and if I am playing a homebrew campaign I can just make up whatever I want. Of course it is good to have something which tells you how to create the NPCs and events in a campaign, but I can do that just as well without the DMG. One of course needs to be able to build a dungeon, but I already know how to build a dungeon before looking in the book. Rules for wilderness survival are already developed in the PHB. It is important to know how to properly include traps, but those are incredibly easy to homewbrew and insert into a game. All the information about ability checks is great, but is once again also in the PHB. The rules for grid combat are common sense and the chase rules are something I could have easily cobbled together under half an hour. The siege equipment is great, but I also could have easily homebrewed that. The insanity section is useful, but really is something that was not very creative in its makeup and easily replicated. All the stuff in the DMs workshop is wonderful, but in truth I didn’t need that section to make all that stuff.

I can’t help but think that the DMG is loaded with a ton of information that I already have or is mentioned in other books. It’s basically teaching me the things which I already know how to do as a DM. Maybe its useful to people to who have never played D&D before and this is their first time, but to everyone else it is feeding them common sense.

The advice on creating encounters, home brewing monsters and magic items are of course very important, but that is just a small part of the book.

[Squiddish]

Give him his Ebberon-lover membership card.

Hey, as a FR and Eberron lover, I take issue with this.

As for the original question, it has to be one of the published adventures. The SCAG has fairly little in terms of mechanical content, but what it does have is very high quality, and it has a lot of quality fluff. Each new supplement seems to blow the previous one out of the water, though, so I think it's fair to say the SCAG is the weakest supplement so far.