Worst 5e Book

[5eNeedsDarksun]

So I find most of the 5e published material fairly solid. There are things I would do differently, but for the most part I haven't bought something and thought, "They really phoned that one in", with one exception.

The Monster Manual is just a lazy effort. There is very little lore about the monsters, in some cases no descriptions, and you are often left wondering what would be typical society or numbers for these creatures. There isn't even an index where you can look up a monster by name, so if you (for example) can't remember that an Arcanaloth fits under a class of monsters called Yugoloths there is absolutely no way to find it without flipping through the entire book.

Given that there have been numerous superior attempts before 5e I just find the whole thing inexcusable and I give it an 'F'. There just isn't a passing grade I could give.
Thoughts?

[Libertad]

Does 3rd party count? If so, I did a review a while ago for 5e: HARDCORE MODE whose rules variants break the game in some pretty basic ways.

[Avonar]

So I find most of the 5e published material fairly solid. There are things I would do differently, but for the most part I haven't bought something and thought, "They really phoned that one in", with one exception.

The Monster Manual is just a lazy effort. There is very little lore about the monsters, in some cases no descriptions, and you are often left wondering what would be typical society or numbers for these creatures. There isn't even an index where you can look up a monster by name, so if you (for example) can't remember that an Arcanaloth fits under a class of monsters called Yugoloths there is absolutely no way to find it without flipping through the entire book.

Given that there have been numerous superior attempts before 5e I just find the whole thing inexcusable and I give it an 'F'. There just isn't a passing grade I could give.
Thoughts?

I'm confused here. There very much is an index in the Monster Manual that does exactly what you want it to do.

As for the lore, I've always been content with how much is provided. Granted, Volo's and Mordenkainen's are superior into just how much detail they go into but it makes sense, they can't have pages of lore for each creature when they need to include a lot of creatures.

Personally I think the worst book they've released is Princes of the Apocalypse. I was interesting in DMing this for friends, but the book is bad. The story behind the adventure is good but the setup and layout, no. It's supposedly a sandbox where players can go wherever they like, but there is a specific order to do things in. It's entirely possible to end up somewhere your party is vastly underlevelled for and for it to kill them. And a few of the plot hooks seem to come from random encounters which I didn't like either. Overall, I figured that if I was going to run it as a campaign I would have had to rewrite/rearrange half of it to form something fun and coherent, and for a published adventure that's a failing.

[Toadkiller]

The Monster Manual really isn’t a lore book. It’s a here is a variety of adversaries to get you started book. There is a sketch of information but it’s deliberately vague so it can go across settingA. I have found it useful.

While I haven’t looked at the Princes book the description above more or less described how I felt as a player in that campaign.

[Merudo]

Hoard of the Dragon Queen has the reputation of being the worst 5e official module.

[Tawmis]

As noted - the Monster Manual does have an Index - at the very back. Lists all the monsters, by the page of their stat blocks.
As for the lore, never cared for it much - since I homebrew and come up with my own lore how creatures are made. Sometimes, I use the basic information - and develop it further.
As for the number of appearing, I'd chalk that up to your party size vs the DC of the monster(s).
And you can chalk up that most humanoids (goblins, orcs, kobolds, hobgoblins, kuo-toa, etc., probably all have villages somewhere - but it's probably unlikely the party will march into a village of orcs, unless there's some kind of alliance).

[HappyDaze]

It's supposedly a sandbox where players can go wherever they like, but there is a specific order to do things in. It's entirely possible to end up somewhere your party is vastly underlevelled for and for it to kill them.

Being able to blunder into places beyond your ability to handle is a feature of a true sandbox, not a bug. The GM may realize there is an order that is more likely to lead to success, but there is no order that things must be done. If they die, so be it; you should probably expect some deaths (even TPKs) in an apocalypse.

But as for crap 5e books...

Acquisitions Incorporated is trash (and I literally threw my copy into the trash).
Sword Cost Adventurer's Guide is pretty bad, so once Tasha's comes out, it goes in the trash too.

[Waazraath]

So I find most of the 5e published material fairly solid. There are things I would do differently, but for the most part I haven't bought something and thought, "They really phoned that one in", with one exception.

The Monster Manual is just a lazy effort. There is very little lore about the monsters, in some cases no descriptions, and you are often left wondering what would be typical society or numbers for these creatures. There isn't even an index where you can look up a monster by name, so if you (for example) can't remember that an Arcanaloth fits under a class of monsters called Yugoloths there is absolutely no way to find it without flipping through the entire book.

Given that there have been numerous superior attempts before 5e I just find the whole thing inexcusable and I give it an 'F'. There just isn't a passing grade I could give.
Thoughts?

I think you have a solid point. F may be a bit harsh, cause it does fulfill its function once you get to know how to use it, but it is lacking in a lot of points.
- descriptions lack details. How large a monster is for example; and yeah, they have a 'size category', but they don't tell me anything concrete.
- not all monsters have artwork. That sucks, these are fantasy creatures, visuals are needed for people not familiar with the type of monster.
- the formatting sucks, and tables aren't set up in logical way. Sometimes there is a line with 'saves' (when monsters ar proficient), but not always when they are not then you need to check ability scores, so there are 2 different places in which you might check for saves. That's bloody bad design.

When I compare with earlier editions, those are vastly superior. Especially 3.5, it provided a lot of concrete and detailed information, background info with suggestions how to use them in a campaign and how they are organised, and much more complete tables.

Princes of the apocalyps was fun to run (didn't finish it alas). It had some issues, but mostly the need to flip between pages all the time, and maps being off-scale. It's a pretty decent sandbox, and while my 3 man party deceided to clear a dungeon 'too early' they still managed to pull it off with smart playing (and some luck). And as somebody said: that's a feature of a sandbox.

As for the worst books: I was less than impressed with Theros, despite the cool artwork. As campaigns, I don't think hoard of the dragon queen and rise of tiamat are very good. I can't imagine playing them in total anytime soon.

[Tawmis]

- not all monsters have artwork. That sucks, these are fantasy creatures, visuals are needed for people not familiar with the type of monster.

Which ones? Not all the Blights do - but they give you some photos.
A few dinosaurs don't.
The different Drow don't, but again, give you some photos of Drow.
Off the top of my head, that's all I can think of.

[Waazraath]

Which ones? Not all the Blights do - but they give you some photos.
A few dinosaurs don't.
The different Drow don't, but again, give you some photos of Drow.
Off the top of my head, that's all I can think of.

I think this is mostly it, plus the beast appendix (yeah, I know how a dog looks like but no, without a picture I don't known how an 'axbeak' or whatever looks like, and certainly a flying snake could have been pictured as well since it doesn't exist in rl), plus only 1 dragon depicted despite different age categories. It just feels sloppy and lazy. And worse, because MM is the template for later monster books, this got carries over, and for example starspawn in Mordenkainen's have 5 totally different types, with only 3 of them illustrated. Goog luck imagining how this unimaginable horror from the far realm looks like then... =/

[ff7hero]

Hot take, Xanathar's solely for the waste of perfectly good paper on a list of fantasy names.

[micahaphone]

Hot take, Xanathar's solely for the waste of perfectly good paper on a list of fantasy names.

ooooh lookit mr pro DM, always has names ready for NPCs

[Segev]

Funny anecdote: I used Xanathar’s NOC quirks tables to help build a gang of urchins in an Exalted game. (I heavily modified the results to make cohesive and interesting characters with neat interpersonal relationships, but the tables were invaluable for inspiring ideas and overcoming the blank page problem.)

[TrueAlphaGamer]

In some ways, I agree that the Monster Manual is very "eh" in hindsight. It does what it sets out to do, but I feel as though it doesn't get me very excited or engaged with the monsters in it. It especially pales in comparison to something like MToF, whose bestiary has some really cool monsters/art.

I guess for me the worst book would have to be something like Theros. Might be that I don't go gaga for Greek stuff like other people, but that book is decidedly the most "damn, I kinda . . . don't care" out of the entire library.

Hot take, Xanathar's solely for the waste of perfectly good paper on a list of fantasy names.

Haha. Yeah I feel you. IMO some books go way too big on the fluff or other inconsequential things.

I think a large issue I have is that Wizards is so careful to release too much of content, that when content does come out and half the pages are filled with descriptions/tables about settings or places or wacky stuff that have no bearing for 80% of campaigns, it feels like a wasted opportunity.

[MrStabby]

ooooh lookit mr pro DM, always has names ready for NPCs

Yeah, might have been more appropriate in the DMG or some more targeted setting specific stuff.

I think it also gets a vote for being the Worst Book for the introduction of the 1st level hexblade abilities. I dont think there is a single level of a single class that has done as much to undermine the credibility of the authors in terms of the belief that additional time and feedback will enable a better balanced game rather than a worse one.

OK they could have probably trashed their reputation a bit harder if they had devoted that space to nothing but racist and misogynistic slurs, but they would have had to work at it.

[loki_ragnarock]

But as for crap 5e books...

Acquisitions Incorporated is trash (and I literally threw my copy into the trash).

I'm pretty fond of Acquisitions Incorporated because it's the only of these books I've read that had a distinctive voice.

Sure, that voice is a spice that's not to everyone's taste, but it's not *bland.*

As someone who gets tired of Applebee's almost instantly, though, the introduction of some flavor was deeply appreciated.

Worst 5e book for me is Guildmaster's Guide to Ravnica. Lopsided backgrounds, mechanics that aren't balanced against the rest of the game at all, recycled art assets, and operating so completely in the conceptual space of Sigil that it ensures I'll never see a 5e Planescape setting leaves me with a clothespin on my nose. P. U.

[Satori01]

Hoard of the Dragon Queen has the reputation of being the worst 5e official module.

I read this module for the first time two weeks ago. It was a decent product.
Much better than Storm King's Thunder.

As for flavor text in the MM vs the approach taken in Volo's etc....different people obviously have different needs. I typically ignore the flavor text in Monster Manuals.

The approach taken in Volos and Mord's, means less pages on new monsters and mechanics that make running the creatures easier, or more evocative, instead the books have more pages of text that may hold no value AT ALL for the reader.

Official culture write ups, organizational stats: terrain, number of appearing etc leads some in the D&D community to Rules Lawyer those aspects.

The 2e Monstrous Compendium is my favorite Monster book...but the expanded ecology section and #of appearing meant placing 3 Bulettes in an encounter might lead to someone claiming you are "Playing Wrong".

I can handle flavor on my own. I just want innovative and cool stats.
Others clearly want different aspects to be emphasized.

[Teaguethebean]

I'm gonna agree with Happy Daze that Acquisitions Incorporated is a simply horrendous book. Zero useful content for dm's and players get spells that are simply game breaking, or laughably useless at the levels they receive them.

[Amechra]

ooooh lookit mr pro DM, always has names ready for NPCs

They're the most boring kind of name generators, though, because they don't incorporate any of the deeper structure that goes into real naming. Like, in the real world names vary greatly in structure based off of your culture of origin. In 5e, you basically just have a paragraph of information in each racial description that tends to boil down to "there are distinctinctly masculine and feminine names".

They could've spent those 17 pages fleshing out naming practices or the kind of day-to-day life that your character might have grown up with... but nope! You get 17 pages of d100 random name charts - and that's before getting into how mixed up the "real world inspired" names are. Quite frankly, it reminds me a bit of this.

...

Plus, we have this strange thing called "the Internet" that you might've heard of, where there are already a ton of resources for name generation.

[ProsecutorGodot]

My order would be:
1-Tyranny of Dragons (the campaign as a set) - it really shows that it was written before the DMG, without relevant information.
2-SCAG - I literally bought it for 2 cantrips.
3-Storm Kings Thunder - it's a very cleverly disguised railroad where I feel like you're given a lot of freedom on the surface but all of that freedom is empty space that is meant to steer you towards the interesting events of the campaign. It's a bit too large.

[Tanarii]

5e MM lore is plenty. Almost too much really. If they'd had more, I'd have skipped the book entirely and just downloaded PDFs of stat blocks as needed. It's a reference guide, not a read-at-home book.

The 5e PHB has some issue. The feats and Multiclassing rules should have been in the appendix, not before ability checks. They're optional rules, and as such much less important than the core mechanic. Also, the spells should be organized alphabetically by spell level. Comparing options in a given level requires flipping back and forth between huge chunks of pages.

5e DMG has one HUGE flaw. The absolute most important section that every DM needs to read is all the way in Chapter 8. "Running the Game" should be the very first chapter.

[Boci]

Also, the spells should be organized alphabetically by spell level. Comparing options in a given level requires flipping back and forth between huge chunks of pages.

Yes, but finding a spell you don't know the level of by name only would be a pain. Imagine a DM running a lamia needing to check mid-encounter what these spells do:

Innate Spellcasting. The lamia's innate spellcasting ability is Charisma (spell save DC 13). It can innately cast the following spells, requiring no material components. At will: disguise self (any humanoid form), major image 3/day each: charm person, mirror image, scrying, suggestion 1/day: geas

[heavyfuel]

Worst 5e book is probably the Player's Handbook.

For one, it has the balance of a drunk two-legged giraffe. Not even talking about different classes and martial-caster disparity, but even the subclasses are wild in their effectiveness. Thief x Assassin, BM x Champion, Literally any other subclass x Berseker.

Then for two, it's extremely apathetic everywhere else, relegating everything to Rule 0 in a lazy attempt to justify not having to write the book. What's the DC for breaking open a locked door? The DM decides. Do we get any guidelines? Nope. Isn't the Alert feat too strong? Well, it's a variant rule. Cleric dip is too strong? Well, it's also a variant rule.

[Corsair14]

MM I loved the old monster manuals with such great artwork and fluff that described the creatures society and habits in depth. The 5e book has the required blocks but thats about it, and I hold all artwork and monster manuals up to the high standards of 2e. In general artwork in 5e has been horribly lacking and stupidly cartoony so since its an edition thing I cant really hold it against any individual book. SCAG is a close second as it has maybe 2 pages of generally useful stuff and the rest is boring Forgettable Realms crap.

[Tawmis]

Worst 5e book is probably the Player's Handbook.
Then for two, it's extremely apathetic everywhere else, relegating everything to Rule 0 in a lazy attempt to justify not having to write the book. What's the DC for breaking open a locked door? The DM decides. Do we get any guidelines? Nope.

Interesting take. I actually enjoy that it's up to the DM. Because, to me, locks vary. Is made by a human? Maybe DC 12. Made by a Dwarf? Might be more study. DC 15. Is it rusty? DC 8. That type of stuff. I often make up the DC based on the party, and what the situation is, which I enjoy - rather than flipping through a book to see what the DC to bend bars might be.

[MaxWilson]

They're the most boring kind of name generators, though, because they don't incorporate any of the deeper structure that goes into real naming. Like, in the real world names vary greatly in structure based off of your culture of origin.
...

Plus, we have this strange thing called "the Internet" that you might've heard of, where there are already a ton of resources for name generation.

You're totally right about structures in naming. That's why I love mapping D&D cultures to cultures in the Onomastikon. Even if players never learn where I got the names, they'll pretty quickly learn that Devlin, Eimar, and Tiamhdha "sound like" Elvish names, whereas an elf named Torsten or Hagen probably has some Dwarvish ties (or at least his parents did). A virulently anti-dwarf racist elf named Hagen is therefore more interesting than an anti-dwarf elf named Legolas.

[heavyfuel]

Interesting take. I actually enjoy that it's up to the DM. Because, to me, locks vary. Is made by a human? Maybe DC 12. Made by a Dwarf? Might be more study. DC 15. Is it rusty? DC 8. That type of stuff. I often make up the DC based on the party, and what the situation is, which I enjoy - rather than flipping through a book to see what the DC to bend bars might be.

I never said the PHB should have rules for everything. But one thing is saying "The average door requires a DC 12 Strength check to break open" and then allowing DMs to figure it out from there, another is saying nothing at all.

Leaving it entirely up to DMs can mean that while some DMs think the average door should be a DC 10, breakable by almost anyone, while other DMs will have it as DC 22, which means you need to be stronger than average and you have to take your time by trying until you roll a 19 or 20.

To me, this constant relegation to DMs screams "I don't want to do my job as a game designer".

For all the faults Hoard of the Dragon Queen had, I mostly blame them on the PHB not giving adequate support to the writers, who were still in the "figuring it out" phase of adventure modules.

[PhoenixPhyre]

I never said the PHB should have rules for everything. But one thing is saying "The average door requires a DC 12 Strength check to break open" and then allowing DMs to figure it out from there, another is saying nothing at all.

Leaving it entirely up to DMs can mean that while some DMs think the average door should be a DC 10, breakable by almost anyone, while other DMs will have it as DC 22, which means you need to be stronger than average and you have to take your time by trying until you roll a 19 or 20.

To me, this constant relegation to DMs screams "I don't want to do my job as a game designer".

That's a fundamental disagreement with the edition as a whole (which shies away from such things), not with a particular book. And particularly not with the PHB, as that's all DM-facing info.

[Lyracian]

For me the worst book is SCAG because of the horrible blade cantrips. I know a lot of people love them but for me the game would be better without them.

[heavyfuel]

That's a fundamental disagreement with the edition as a whole (which shies away from such things), not with a particular book. And particularly not with the PHB, as that's all DM-facing info.

Even if was their intention, for a book supposed to tell players what their characters do, the PHB does a terrible job at it.

Player: "Can my character open doors?"
PHB: " ¯\_(ツ)_/¯"

For me the worst book is SCAG because of the horrible blade cantrips. I know a lot of people love them but for me the game would be better without them.

I mostly dislike how Booming Blade is just so much better than GFB and how they are the only two blade cantrips