Worst 5e Book

[Boci]

3.5 and PF had the best organization, I think, with the class list indeces having short descriptions of the spells for quick lookup of "spells of X level for Y class," and the alphabetical listing of spells having classes that cast it and at what level of spell in the spell descriptions.

In the spirit of "no system is without its downsides" those brief sumerries are responsible for a lot of confusion by new players who think they accurately describe how the spell works when trying to decide which one to cast mid combat.

[PhoenixPhyre]

3.5 and PF had the best organization, ... and the alphabetical listing of spells having classes that cast it and at what level of spell in the spell descriptions.

I disagree with this particular part--it's super fragile against change. New classes mean having to errata the PHB and risk conflict.

Honestly, the only way that new players can really pick spells in any edition I've ever played (PF/4e/5e) is to have spell cards or an online tool. There are just too many of them.

Sorting by spell level -> alphabetically in the body of the text would be ok with me.

[KorvinStarmast]

There are just too many of them.

Yep. A 10% liposuction would be in order, as I see it.

[Doug Lampert]

I've seen a group implode over that. My friend was an old school player, and refused to accept that killing an orc sight because they were orcs and therefor it was the dity of a good character to kill them wasn't acceptable. This led to a number of arguments that eventually resulted in the DM ending the campaign.

Eh? How old school was he? Because the ORIGINAL GAME back in 1973 listed orcs as possibly neutral IIRC, and that was back when there were only three alignments.

[Boci]

Eh? How old school was he? Because the ORIGINAL GAME back in 1973 listed orcs as possibly neutral IIRC, and that was back when there were only three alignments.

Lord of the Rings old school. He often referenced it when the topic came up.

[Doug Lampert]

Lord of the Rings old school. He often referenced it when the topic came up.

IIRC there are some Tolkien quotes out there that orcs are not irredeemable since Morgoth lacked the power to create but could only corrupt what already existed.

[Boci]

IIRC there are some Tolkien quotes out there that orcs are not irredeemable since Morgoth lacked the power to create but could only corrupt what already existed.

Possibly, but that likely would have come later. Whilst Morkoth is named dropped once or twice in LotR, the The Silmarillion wasn't published until 23 years after LotR (though it may have been written before that). In any case, that piece of lore was not something my friend subscribed to.

[Segev]

I disagree with this particular part--it's super fragile against change. New classes mean having to errata the PHB and risk conflict.

Honestly, the only way that new players can really pick spells in any edition I've ever played (PF/4e/5e) is to have spell cards or an online tool. There are just too many of them.

Sorting by spell level -> alphabetically in the body of the text would be ok with me.

True, it does become outdated when new classes are printed...but that's like complaining that it's better to have a random glass handed to you and be asked to get a cup of water than to be handed a measuring beaker and asked the same thing, just because later on you might be introduced to metric and the beaker doesn't have metric measurements printed on it.

And having used both sort by spell level and sort by alphabetical first, I can say the latter is definitely my preference. I was even introduced to the former first; like I said, I got started with 1e AD&D, and the first RPG book I ever read was the PHB for that edition.

[micahaphone]

In the spirit of "no system is without its downsides" those brief sumerries are responsible for a lot of confusion by new players who think they accurately describe how the spell works when trying to decide which one to cast mid combat.

My god, you are right. I absolutely hate that about pathfinder. I'll read the synopsis of a spell then the DM has a question and I need to read through the synopsis and the full text it's like they expect me to memorize every spell available to me

[Segev]

My god, you are right. I absolutely hate that about pathfinder. I'll read the synopsis of a spell then the DM has a question and I need to read through the synopsis and the full text it's like they expect me to memorize every spell available to me

I still think the summary is better than nothing. Experience will quickly teach players that the summary is just a summary. Unless you memorize every spell, you'll never know what you're reading in a spell's name. You might have a reasonable guess, but a summary would tell you so much more.

[Miele]

If and only if the topic is the quality of a book, in "money per page" worth, then I'd say that the rules manuals are pretty much okay, they do their job even if they are lacking in some or several aspects.
If instead the criticism is towards the balance of 5e book by book, then I could have something to say.

I enjoyed SCAG, got it as a background book that answered a ton of questions I had on the FR setting. It's not a fast read, nor an easy one, the reader must *really* be interested in it. The cantrips... who cares honestly, they are good, but not game breaking, in fact they add choices that, more often than not, are interesting.

XGtE is mandatory: I mean it's so good that if you create a character with just the PHB, then start a campaign and *then* buy XGtE, well... you feel the desire to die or suicide, so you can reroll with the new book contribution.

So far the worst book for me has been Hoard of the dragon queen, it was a painful slog, not particularly interesting, prone to break the illusion of disbelief every other step... I understand it was done very early in the 5e history, but it was really NOT worth the money.

(Descent into Avernus on the other hand...)

[MaxWilson]

I still think the summary is better than nothing. Experience will quickly teach players that the summary is just a summary. Unless you memorize every spell, you'll never know what you're reading in a spell's name. You might have a reasonable guess, but a summary would tell you so much more.

It might help to have examples of what you have in mind. What summaries would you write for Fireball, Hold Person, Sequester, and Contingency? Do you imagine something like:

Fireball (8d6 fire, 20' radius, Dex save for half)
Hold Person (paralyze humanoids temporarily, Wis save each round)
Sequester (turn objects invisible and undetectable indefinitely)
Contingency (delay a spell up to 5th level until a trigger occurs)

Is that really better than a page reference?

[PhoenixPhyre]

It might help to have examples of what you have in mind. What summaries would you write for Fireball, Hold Person, Sequester, and Contingency? Do you imagine something like:

Fireball (8d6 fire, 20' radius, Dex save for half)
Hold Person (paralyze humanoids temporarily, Wis save each round)
Sequester (turn objects invisible and undetectable indefinitely)
Contingency (delay a spell up to 5th level until a trigger occurs)

Is that really better than a page reference?

My problem with summaries is that they quickly replace the actual text. People read them and then don't read the real thing. Which drops tons of nuance. I saw the same thing with summaries of notes when teaching school. There is no shortcut for actually reading the text.

The only thing that works for spells IMO is spell cards (virtual or not). Experienced players can work either way, but new players need something "physical".

[Segev]

It might help to have examples of what you have in mind. What summaries would you write for Fireball, Hold Person, Sequester, and Contingency? Do you imagine something like:

Fireball (8d6 fire, 20' radius, Dex save for half)
Hold Person (paralyze humanoids temporarily, Wis save each round)
Sequester (turn objects invisible and undetectable indefinitely)
Contingency (delay a spell up to 5th level until a trigger occurs)

Is that really better than a page reference?

Those would be awesome, honestly. And heavens, yes, they're better than a page reference. With it arranged alphabetically, finding the spell isn't much harder than finding the page number. I mean, if you really have to have a page number, "p. 275" is not going to add too much to those summaries.

You don't even need the page number if you do the spell level->alphabetical organization, because you're looking at the spell list. It tells you what level spell you're looking at, so you can search levels and alphabet as easily as alphabet alone. The reason I'm in favor of alphabetical listing with no spell level sorting on the full spell descriptions is for reference from other books. Adding "p. 254" to every spell that, say, a Gray Slaad can cast is going to inflate the stat block and hinder readability. And since it doesn't say what level the spell-like abilities are, organizing by spell level -> alphabetical would mean having to search multiple spell level sections if you don't happen to remember it. So the page number reference would be needed, then. Which, again, bulks out that stat block.

[heavyfuel]

It might help to have examples of what you have in mind. What summaries would you write for Fireball, Hold Person, Sequester, and Contingency? Do you imagine something like:

Fireball (8d6 fire, 20' radius, Dex save for half)
Hold Person (paralyze humanoids temporarily, Wis save each round)
Sequester (turn objects invisible and undetectable indefinitely)
Contingency (delay a spell up to 5th level until a trigger occurs)

Is that really better than a page reference?

Those are actually pretty great. Definitely better than a page reference.

Especially for divine casters who have access to every spell in their list, having a summary can really help preparing the right spell. Say a Cleric wants some area negation spell, what can they get? Well a quick summary of Blade Barrier will quickly answer that.

You don't have to read dozens and dozens of paragraphs of description to get what you want. Just read dozens and dozens of short descriptions and one or two paragraphs.

[xroads]

Sword Cost Adventurer's Guide.

It's not terrible. It just has too much fluff and too little crunch for my taste.

[Tanarii]

I disagree with this particular part--it's super fragile against change. New classes mean having to errata the PHB and risk conflict.

Not to mention theres the question of if subclass specific spells should be included. Ie should Thunderwave list Wiz, Sorc, Druid, Tempest, (insert subclasses I cant remember).

Honestly, the only way that new players can really pick spells in any edition I've ever played (PF/4e/5e) is to have spell cards or an online tool. There are just too many of them.

Fair. I agree. Spell cards are a necessity.

Sorting by spell level -> alphabetically in the body of the text would be ok with me.

I get where people that just want it alphabetical overall come from. Maybe I'm just wistfully grognarding for when I'd turn to the page for 3rd level cleric spells and then peruse them all.

Except even then it said c.f. Wizard 2 Darkness. 😂

[Segev]

Wizard 2 Darkness. 😂

"This is Wizard to Darkness. Come in, Darkness."



Yeah, my first edition had them listed by level and class first.

Illusionist was basically the first attempt at a spontaneous caster: all the Shadow Conjuration and Shadow Evocation lines were about preparing one spell that could be several different ones.

[Souhiro]

If anything, I'd say that DM's Guide is pretty lackluster for me.

Of course, I'm comparing it with his main rival: Pathfinder's DM's Guide. With PF out there, not wanting to adress it would be just delusional:

PF's Guide tell you how to build a story, and a good collection of tricks to keep your players and yourself commited to the game. It has even ways of recovering the pace from a TPK!

The bulk of DM's guide is the magic item compendium. Maybe it's the message of "Magic Items aren't a necessity now" but I find it just a way to fill space. The art isn't also that good: Most of the items looks pretty fragile to me. The kind of object that you'd better keep under lock and wrapped in the softest cloth, not stuff them in a backpack while fighting ogres!

Also, it has too much filler text, too many obvious things like 'Hight level characters are powerful. Lvl 20 characters are masters of their world because they have access to Wish". But martial classes cannot cast wish (Even if they can cast at all!) and spontaneous casters may not bother themselves with that spell.

The other addition is the Downtime actions. But I still find them odd: If the campaign is a race against time -and most campaigns I've been are- PC's aren't going to spend time running a business. If anything, after a big fight -the one at the end of a chapter- they would want to rest. Spent part of the loot just sleeping in the tavern, drinking their pains away before packing and keep fighting evil.


By the wae: Seriously, this Wand of Thunderbolts looks like it would break if I swing it!

Spoiler

Show

[ProsecutorGodot]

By the wae: Seriously, this Wand of Thunderbolts looks like it would break if I swing it!

Spoiler

Show

In fairness, you don't really swing a wand. My complaint would be that it looks eerily similar to a melted spatula.

[furby076]

If they can spend tons of pages on naming suggestions, they can spend said pages on skill DC suggestions. For example, I missed suggestions:
Climbing Wall:DC 15
Has handholds: -5 DC
Is vertical:+5 dc
Is made of ice: +10 DC

Here is the argument about "let the DM decide"...the DM can still decide to override the above "yes it has handholds, but you can only stick one finger inside, so it's only +1". Done. And as the "rules lawyer" for my table, my "rules lawyer job" is to help clarify rules, not argue with the DM. For example, we have been doing Surprise wrong. In our table Surprise gives the surprisers a totally free round. Those surprised dont even roll initiative. The DM asked me at the table and i explained the correct way and said "but you play how you want"...and guess wht...that's how i explain the rules, and the DM appreciates what I know and sometimes says "lets do it" and sometimes says "my way is better'. But at least give us the information.

At this point, skill DC suggestions should be a free web supplement

[Tanarii]

If they can spend tons of pages on naming suggestions, they can spend said pages on skill DC suggestions. For example, I missed suggestions:
Climbing Wall:DC 15
Has handholds: -5 DC
Is vertical:+5 dc
Is made of ice: +10 DC

First of all, a wall with handholds is DC Automatic unless something is trying to knock you off or there's a hazard. Even a Str 3 character without Athletics can do it. DCs aren't even necessary unless it's slippery or sheer, or there's a hazard or something is trying to knock you off. And if you have time, you can take ten times as long and succeed as long as it's possible. Climbing checks aren't needed unless it's time dependent and an exceptional situation.

Every time I see climbing brought up, it seems like that's overlooked. And all checks are like that. It needs to be time dependent, and it needs to be an exceptional situation.

Second of all ... I dunno, maybe at this point they need to make that clearer for every check. Tables aren't needed if there's a clearer statement for each one of the things that are automatic without a check. But what I don't want is 3e style checks-simulate-the-world. Very few modern RPGs go that route, instead going the 5e style of broad bands of difficulty and GM judgement on when a check is necessary and what the difficulty is. What you're asking for is winding back the clock on game design 20 years.

Of course, I often lament and want to wind back the clock forty years to BECMI concepts.

[Waazraath]

First of all, a wall with handholds is DC Automatic unless something is trying to knock you off or there's a hazard. Even a Str 3 character without Athletics can do it. DCs aren't even necessary unless it's slippery or sheer, or there's a hazard or something is trying to knock you off. And if you have time, you can take ten times as long and succeed as long as it's possible. Climbing checks aren't needed unless it's time dependent and an exceptional situation.

Every time I see climbing brought up, it seems like that's overlooked. And all checks are like that. It needs to be time dependent, and it needs to be an exceptional situation.

Second of all ... I dunno, maybe at this point they need to make that clearer for every check. Tables aren't needed if there's a clearer statement for each one of the things that are automatic without a check. But what I don't want is 3e style checks-simulate-the-world. Very few modern RPGs go that route, instead going the 5e style of broad bands of difficulty and GM judgement on when a check is necessary and what the difficulty is. What you're asking for is winding back the clock on game design 20 years.

Of course, I often lament and want to wind back the clock forty years to BECMI concepts.

I don't know... I have the feeling there is a difference between what you mention here (3.x route with tables for everything), and what furby076 is talking about (skill DC suggestions). I don't play other RPG's at the moment so I don't know what the state of the art in game design is atm, but not every change needs to be an improvement. Personally, I feel the pendulum might have swung(?) too far the other way compared to 3.x. Instead of having a skill difficulties (DC's) given for everything there are DC's for almost nothing. Yeah, a few examples for climbing and persuasion, but otherwise it's either 'opposed contest' or the 'very simple to almost impossible' chart in the PHB.

The reason why I think that there is too little atm, is because skills are part of the balancing of classes - but how can you balance something if you don't define at all what it does? Take rogues (the best example cause skill is their main shtick). When you can do very little with 'skill', it is a sub par class. When you can do great supernatural things with DC's for 'hard' or 'very hard', the class, with expertise and reliable talent, is fantastic. This cannot solely depend on the DM, at least when classes were designed, designers should have had an idea on what 'expertise' could do and how it would be weighted against other abilities in the game.

I don't want lists for everything, but an idea, per skill, what could be done with skill at some of the different difficulty levels in a default game isn't that much to ask imo. They could even expand on it: if you want a game where your characters can do more supernatural stuff without casting spells, 'very hard' could mean X (e.g.: DC25 acrobatics to fly / jump a la crouching tiger hidden dragon, or DC 25 persuasion to convince a dragon to fee you instead of eat you), with a warning that this makes certain classes and races relative stronger; or some suggestions for a very 'mundane' world where DC's are much higher (but also with a warning that rogue for example is relative weak, and maybe some suggestions on how to compensate for that).

You can go pretty far with this without ending up in the 3.5 territory where a skill sometimes had more than a page description with several tables in a really smal font.

[MoiMagnus]

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

I have, however, grown used to it and actually find it much more useful organized in pure alphabetical order when I want to look up the spell when it's referenced in a monster's statblock or similarly named with no additional information.

If you organize spells by level, you obviously have to include the level in every occurrence of the spell in other books.
So the innate spellcasting text would be instead "At will: disguise self [1st level] (any humanoid form)" or something similar.

And that would probably be way better for a new DM. Having the spell level systematically in the text would inform him of the relative power of this spell without having to read the description of the spell.

[Segev]

If you organize spells by level, you obviously have to include the level in every occurrence of the spell in other books.
So the innate spellcasting text would be instead "At will: disguise self [1st level] (any humanoid form)" or something similar.

And that would probably be way better for a new DM. Having the spell level systematically in the text would inform him of the relative power of this spell without having to read the description of the spell.

I’m not sure how that helps a new DM. He’s going to have to look up the spell anyway if he doesn’t already know what it does. What does telling him it’s level do that saves him any time? The monster has the spell and has a CR.

[Boci]

If you organize spells by level, you obviously have to include the level in every occurrence of the spell in other books.
So the innate spellcasting text would be instead "At will: disguise self [1st level] (any humanoid form)" or something similar.

And that would probably be way better for a new DM. Having the spell level systematically in the text would inform him of the relative power of this spell without having to read the description of the spell.

There would still be over issues. "At what level can we cast teleport?" is a good question. Teleport is a useful spell that opens up the game world for the party and changes how they expirience the story. If a new DM doesn't know that level teleport is, checking will be a pain. Checking what level daylight is, because you seem to be encountering a lot of sunslight sensitive creatures in the game is a liekwise valid question, as is remove disease.

By contrast the only benefit I can think of for the alphabetical and by level listing is leveling up a caster, which typically doesn't happen during gameplay.

[Tanarii]

I’m not sure how that helps a new DM. He’s going to have to look up the spell anyway if he doesn’t already know what it does. What does telling him it’s level do that saves him any time? The monster has the spell and has a CR.

You missed the point. If it's by level, then alphabetical within a level, you need to include the level listing to find it. Or have an index of spells page.

Of course, I reiterate: if you have to stop the game to look up a spell you've already messed up.

The players handbook is supposed to be a reference book for making characters. That's when by level, then alphabetical within each level, really shines. Make it useful for what it's primarily used for.

[Boci]

The players handbook is supposed to be a reference book for making characters. That's when by level, then alphabetical within each level, really shines. Make it useful for what it's primarily used for.

So DMs are expected to remember every spell and not look them up because the players handbook is for making characters, not for them? That's ridiculous and I don't believe you actually think that.

Sure, its good practice to look up spells you know will be relevant before the session, but new DMs and even expirienced DMs will sometimes miss something and need to look something up. You can fluff that as "well the DM messed up" if you like, but being human that is a thing that will happen.

[Segev]

You missed the point. If it's by level, then alphabetical within a level, you need to include the level listing to find it. Or have an index of spells page.

Of course, I reiterate: if you have to stop the game to look up a spell you've already messed up.

The players handbook is supposed to be a reference book for making characters. That's when by level, then alphabetical within each level, really shines. Make it useful for what it's primarily used for.

You said that it would help the DM to see that a spell is a particular level in the monster entry. I am asking how that is so. What information does that convey and how is it useful to the DM to know it, assuming he is not going to go look the spell up in the PHB?

Or did I misunderstand your statement that it would be useful to the DM to know the power level of a spell when he sees it in the monster’s entry? If so, please explain what you meant by that.

[Tanarii]

You said that it would help the DM to see that a spell is a particular level in the monster entry. I am asking how that is so. What information does that convey and how is it useful to the DM to know it, assuming he is not going to go look the spell up in the PHB?

Or did I misunderstand your statement that it would be useful to the DM to know the power level of a spell when he sees it in the monster’s entry? If so, please explain what you meant by that.

It wasnt my statement. But I assumed the usefulness was being able to find the spell in the PHB if it was arranged level first, then alphabetical withing each level.