Worst 5e Book

[ironkid]

I thought Ravinica was bad.

Mythic Odysseys of Theros is far and away the worst book out there. it is a campaign setting that ties and manipulates the players into either playing a cleric or sucking up to a deity patron.

the race selection is limited and poor. The map is an uninspired brown blob with no wondrous sites or features. there are just three cities, all human, and then the writing team went home.

the entire book is a knockoff Greek mythology setting. But all the names are changed to a make believe culture that seems afraid it might get sued by ancient Greeks. (There is no copyright on Greek mythology). The only real work was done on the deity system and the rest was just lazy.

I find the book 100% useless.

I *LOVE* the book. I agree it's useless tho

To be clear: I love the greek mythology flavor, I love the gods involvement thing, I love the overpowered bonuses you get, and I *really* like the piety thing. The problem is, the only people that would be interested would be ones with the same passion for mytholgy that I have - and they wouldnt be interested in fake zeus or fake charon, they'd want the Zeus and Charon (I myself don't care about the presented gods, except for inspiration for the actual things). And while you and I can incorporate Zeus or Hades in our games, I do understand a company's reluctance to do so, as classic gods did serious sexual crimes that have been horribly unjustifiable since always.

Yeah, on a local level we can pretend it never happened and make it so in our games, but I do understand WotC reluctance to use the actual Deities.

The PC options aren't bad just too limited (two subclasses and only a new race option, the satyr, none of which are bad at all); I expected at least racial feats for the centaur and the minotaur, which are hardly the most played, or powerful, races available.

If I had been in charge of the proyect, I'd tried to talk with my editor to include an appendix with the piety system applied to the gods included in the PHB. As it is, the book is a good read, the piety system is a good inspiration for other deities, has few but interesting PC options, and sans those, will likely see no play at all.

[Pex]

I can see an argument for why they're different. Combat is combat, and skills are skills. 5e seems to be written under the assumption that the tules of combat will largely be the same from group to group, but skills won't, or even game to game. Is finding food going to be an issue for the group on their week long trek to the fortress of solitude? How will the group find the ex-thieves guild member hiding in the port city? By not giving a straight answer one way or another 5e allows a DM some control over the story they tell, without making combat also entirely at their whim.



But then why does that need to be printed? In 3.5 DC: 0 was meaningful because you could stack enough penalties that a player could have a fair chance of failing, but in 5th ed, failing a DC 0 would generally require having no profiency, 7 or less in the relevant stack, and rolling a 1, so why is the rulebook wasting ink telling us the DC is 0 when not assigning a DC would work just as well 99.9% of the time.

Because not every DM agrees on what is trivial enough not to need a roll. A baseline is needed for a frame of reference. I've seen it in play of DMs having difficulty on what DC to give something. They don't know because they lack a frame of reference. It's not enough to say what number to give when something is easy or hard. What's also needed is what makes something easy or hard. Tell the DM a few examples of DCs for a skill. He can take it from there for everything else. If climbing a ladder should be trivial tell DMs that. Tell them it's DC 0, and you won't have one DM say DC 10 another DC 15 and another DC 20.

[Spriteless]

From a player's perspective, I always find complaining that one DM gives a DC 10 and another DC15 to be annoying. Like, I know you just want to play the same game at many tables, but it's not a war game. You might as well complain that some DMs run games with political intrigue, some run whodunnits, and some dungeon crawls. It's a feature, not a bug, that different DMs run games that are not equal.

But as a DM it would be nice if I didn't have to pull quite so many numbers out of my butt. It was intimidating at first. If I just decide it's DC 15 am I somehow illegitimate? (No, but I have social anxiety so yes.) I could look up a table in Pathfinder, then half it, and then add 5; it makes me feel it's a legitimate number, but is extra work. I'd like some sort of number to start with and change so it is less work for me.

[PhoenixPhyre]

From a player's perspective, I always find complaining that one DM gives a DC 10 and another DC15 to be annoying. Like, I know you just want to play the same game at many tables, but it's not a war game. You might as well complain that some DMs run games with political intrigue, some run whodunnits, and some dungeon crawls. It's a feature, not a bug, that different DMs run games that are not equal.

But as a DM it would be nice if I didn't have to pull quite so many numbers out of my butt. It was intimidating at first. If I just decide it's DC 15 am I somehow illegitimate? (No, but I have social anxiety so yes.) I could look up a table in Pathfinder, then half it, and then add 5; it makes me feel it's a legitimate number, but is extra work. I'd like some sort of number to start with and change so it is less work for me.

Here's legitimate numbers for you for any occasion where they're not written down:

Do I want there to only be a small chance of failure? DC 10
Do I want there to be a medium chance of failure? DC 15 <---this is a fine default for things that have interesting failure states
Do I want there to be a large chance of failure? DC 20

Done. You don't need any other DCs to play the game. If you're tempted to say that DC 10 is too hard, don't call for a check at all, just let them succeed. At high levels you can assign DC 25 or 30 checks if you don't want anyone but a specialist to have a chance.

------------
More seriously (although the above is totally true), social anxiety is a pain. I totally understand the desire to have a "shield" to justify your decisions. But here's the thing (IMO). Those "shields" are crutches. They slow down the game and prevent you from becoming the great DM you can be. And reinforce your anxiety.

You could instead dig through all the DCs found in the DMG, PHB, and Xanathar's Guide (those are likely to be generic, rather than adventure-specific) and start forming your own mental model There are a lot more of them defined than you might think. I compiled a list of 82, but that was condensing lots of similar checks together (for instance all the "social checks" ended up in 4 rows). The benefit of doing so is that you gain a deeper understanding of the intent and meaning of each DC and check, while also being able to say "I don't like that--in my world X is [easier|harder] than that."

[Tanarii]

Here's legitimate numbers for you for any occasion where they're not written down:

Do I want there to only be a small chance of failure? DC 10
Do I want there to be a medium chance of failure? DC 15 <---this is a fine default for things that have interesting failure states
Do I want there to be a large chance of failure? DC 20

Done. You don't need any other DCs to play the game. If you're tempted to say that DC 10 is too hard, don't call for a check at all, just let them succeed. At high levels you can assign DC 25 or 30 checks if you don't want anyone but a specialist to have a chance.

------------

These numbers are wrong.

Do I want there to only be a small chance of failure? DC 5
Do I want there to be a medium chance of failure? DC 10 <---this is a fine default for things that have interesting failure states
Do I want there to be a large chance of failure, unless you've got both a high score and proficiency? DC 15
Do I want almost no chance of success, unless you've got both a high score and proficiency and Magic, and expertise is a good idea too? DC 20

Edit: I don't want numbers for specific tasks. I think that's creates more problems than it solves for DMs. But the DMG labels/names for setting DCs in the one table that needs to exist sets unrealistic expectations.

[PhoenixPhyre]

These numbers are wrong.

Do I want there to only be a small chance of failure? DC 5
Do I want there to be a medium chance of failure? DC 10 <---this is a fine default for things that have interesting failure states
Do I want there to be a large chance of failure, unless you've got both a high score and proficiency? DC 15
Do I want almost no chance of success, unless you've got both a high score and proficiency and Magic, and expertise is a good idea too? DC 20

Edit: I don't want numbers for specific tasks. I think that's creates more problems than it solves for DMs. But the DMG labels/names for setting DCs in the one table that needs to exist sets unrealistic expectations.

Depends on your baseline. The names match really well if they're referencing a level 1 character with either a good ability score or a weaker one and proficiency.

I'd never assign a dc 5 check unless it was critical (bad consequence for failure) and a straight check in a tertiary score for everyone. Because otherwise it's not worth rolling.

A 50% chance of failure (dc 10, mod 0) is about as low as I care to go. Because anyone who hasv either proficiency or a decent stat can hardly fail.

[Pex]

These numbers are wrong.

Do I want there to only be a small chance of failure? DC 5
Do I want there to be a medium chance of failure? DC 10 <---this is a fine default for things that have interesting failure states
Do I want there to be a large chance of failure, unless you've got both a high score and proficiency? DC 15
Do I want almost no chance of success, unless you've got both a high score and proficiency and Magic, and expertise is a good idea too? DC 20

Edit: I don't want numbers for specific tasks. I think that's creates more problems than it solves for DMs. But the DMG labels/names for setting DCs in the one table that needs to exist sets unrealistic expectations.

Depends on your baseline. The names match really well if they're referencing a level 1 character with either a good ability score or a weaker one and proficiency.

I'd never assign a dc 5 check unless it was critical (bad consequence for failure) and a straight check in a tertiary score for everyone. Because otherwise it's not worth rolling.

A 50% chance of failure (dc 10, mod 0) is about as low as I care to go. Because anyone who hasv either proficiency or a decent stat can hardly fail.

My point proven.

[Tanarii]

I'd never assign a dc 5 check unless it was critical (bad consequence for failure) and a straight check in a tertiary score for everyone. Because otherwise it's not worth rolling.

That's a fairly common situation IMX. Unless you're running a game with a lot of One Roll to Rule Them All checks for the entire party, and the players get to let the PC with the best odds step up. Otherwise, having to roll without a high ability score and proficiency should be more common than not.

My point proven.

No. We're arguing about if the numbers on the one table a DM needs are right. Your argument that overly generalized tasks need specific numbers still doesn't hold water.

[Telwar]

I *LOVE* the book. I agree it's useless tho

To be clear: I love the greek mythology flavor, I love the gods involvement thing, I love the overpowered bonuses you get, and I *really* like the piety thing. The problem is, the only people that would be interested would be ones with the same passion for mytholgy that I have - and they wouldnt be interested in fake zeus or fake charon, they'd want the Zeus and Charon (I myself don't care about the presented gods, except for inspiration for the actual things). And while you and I can incorporate Zeus or Hades in our games, I do understand a company's reluctance to do so, as classic gods did serious sexual crimes that have been horribly unjustifiable since always.

Yeah, on a local level we can pretend it never happened and make it so in our games, but I do understand WotC reluctance to use the actual Deities.

The PC options aren't bad just too limited (two subclasses and only a new race option, the satyr, none of which are bad at all); I expected at least racial feats for the centaur and the minotaur, which are hardly the most played, or powerful, races available.

If I had been in charge of the proyect, I'd tried to talk with my editor to include an appendix with the piety system applied to the gods included in the PHB. As it is, the book is a good read, the piety system is a good inspiration for other deities, has few but interesting PC options, and sans those, will likely see no play at all.

Yeah, if you DON'T want to play in that setting...and I'll be honest, I'm not sure why anyone would, there is very little that's portable. But it's a fairly detailed setting presentation.

Which brings me to my worst book, SCAG. And to be fair, I think they've changed their minds since that was published, because Wildemont, Theros, Ravnica, and Eberron are all beautifully detailed setting books, but SCAG...I think assumes you already know about the Realms, and maybe they thought if you didn't, you'd be happy to go buy PDFs of the old books that did detail the setting.

[PhoenixPhyre]

That's a fairly common situation IMX. Unless you're running a game with a lot of One Roll to Rule Them All checks for the entire party, and the players get to let the PC with the best odds step up. Otherwise, having to roll without a high ability score and proficiency should be more common than not.

Even someone at +0 only has a 20% chance of failure. Unless it's something do or die, I'm still not going to roll. And I rarely have any single check with that big of consequences. Remember, the opposite of ORtRTA is One Failure Condemns Them All. And (except in stealth), neither one is all that great a practice IMO.

But sure. Either set of DCs (5|10|15|20) or (10|15|20) is plenty good. And I'm fine with a default of ether 10 or 15. I'd probably do 10 for straight checks and 15 if proficiency's allowed.

But to be honest, I have to confess that I rarely actually set explicit DCs beyond "roll high/roll low". Because 50% of the time at least, the die roll isn't where I have to think about it. But I'm also pretty strict about DC: No and DC: Yes (success not possible and failure not reasonable, respectively). And I'll flat out tell people when the characters would know the plan wouldn't work. So by the time they're actually rolling, it's all about resolving that middle 50% uncertainty range. That's a style thing IMO.

And I'm also a rule-follower by nature--if they had fixed DCs for things it would be more difficult for me to set my own. Which would severely cramp my style and my worldbuilding. And suck most of the fun out of things for me by increasing my mental overhead and anxiety about "doing it right" by leaps and bounds.

[Pex]

That's a fairly common situation IMX. Unless you're running a game with a lot of One Roll to Rule Them All checks for the entire party, and the players get to let the PC with the best odds step up. Otherwise, having to roll without a high ability score and proficiency should be more common than not.


No. We're arguing about if the numbers on the one table a DM needs are right. Your argument that overly generalized tasks need specific numbers still doesn't hold water.

My point is different DMs having different opinions on the difficulties of a task, and my two most vocal opponents on the matter can't even agree on what DCs to give even just for advice. Point is proven. Someone has to come up with the example DCs. It would be the game designers' job to have provided the example DC tables for DMs to use for those of us who wanted them. Let them hash it out in development all the different opinions on difficulties until they come up with a final output. They chose not to do that, causing these problems I and others have.

[Spriteless]

My point is different DMs having different opinions on the difficulties of a task, and my two most vocal opponents on the matter can't even agree on what DCs to give even just for advice. Point is proven. Someone has to come up with the example DCs. It would be the game designers' job to have provided the example DC tables for DMs to use for those of us who wanted them. Let them hash it out in development all the different opinions on difficulties until they come up with a final output. They chose not to do that, causing these problems I and others have.

It is true, different DMs set the DCs to different numbers. Whether this is a glitch or a feature is more a matter of taste. I would find it disconcerting if I were playing Adventure League with a different DM every week. Instead, it's more like I have 2 buddies with 2 different styles, I just think of it as one runs Dark Souls while the other runs Hyrule Warriors. They are very different games that have different moments and challenges. If it is a campaign rather than pick up, it's worth bringing up in session zero if you want to use skills!

I get more upset that people think D&D is the only system, then that people run D&D differently.

[Imbalance]

Even if the rules were hard coded, things would probably still play differently at different tables, just like how Cruisin' USA was technically the same game on SNES as it had been in arcades, though it felt dissimilar in many ways.

[PhoenixPhyre]

Even if the rules were hard coded, things would probably still play differently at different tables, just like how Cruisin' USA was technically the same game on SNES as it had been in arcades, though it felt dissimilar in many ways.

The rules of Monopoly are hard coded. Yet I'd bet fewer people play it "stock" than play with any of the (widely-varying) house rules.

Variation is inevitable. The 5e designers realized that and realized that by delegating to the DMs and their tables they could please more people with less brittleness and a more robust system. And it seems to have been born out in practice.

[Pex]

The rules of Monopoly are hard coded. Yet I'd bet fewer people play it "stock" than play with any of the (widely-varying) house rules.

Variation is inevitable. The 5e designers realized that and realized that by delegating to the DMs and their tables they could please more people with less brittleness and a more robust system. And it seems to have been born out in practice.

The rules of Chess are hard coded and played without variation*, yet you can't say every game plays exactly the same.

*There are interesting variants, such as adding two new pieces - The Cardinal that moves like Bishop & Knight and Phoenix that moves like Rook & Knight to play on a 10 x 10 board plus the famous Star Trek 3D Chess, but they are novelties not serious contention of playing Chess.

[KorvinStarmast]

From a player's perspective, I always find complaining that one DM gives a DC 10 and another DC15 to be annoying.

I find that to be true both as a player and as a DM. Pick a number, roll, see what happens. And then, See What Happens Next.

My point is different DMs having different opinions on the difficulties of a task, .

That is correct. Deal with it. Or, leave the table if you can't handle it. This isn't a video game where you control the mouse/joystick.

The dice will be cruel to you but you will soldier on.

Go and read the PHB and find the text that I just quoted. Hint for you: it's early in the book

RTFM

[Pex]

I find that to be true both as a player and as a DM. Pick a number, roll, see what happens. And then, See What Happens Next. That is correct. Deal with it. Or, leave the table if you can't handle it. This isn't a video game where you control the mouse/joystick. Go and read the PHB and find the text that I just quoted. Hint for you: it's early in the book

RTFM

Tell the people who don't like Great Weapon Master and Sharpshooter to "Deal with it. Or, leave the table if you can't handle it."

Tell the people who don't like players dipping into Hexblade to "Deal with it. Or, leave the table if you can't handle it."

Tell the people who don't like the SCAG Cantrips to "Deal with it. Or, leave the table if you can't handle it."

Meanwhile I can always hope they'll have a page or two in Tasha providing example DCs. I'm not expecting it, but it's nice to think about. I was pleasantly surprised they gave example DCs for tool use in Xanathar, so it's possible.

[KorvinStarmast]

Tell the people who don't like Great Weapon Master and Sharpshooter to "Deal with it. Or, leave the table if you can't handle it."

I have objected to ther objections in the past. The hate on martials I dislike.

Tell the people who don't like players dipping into Hexblade to "Deal with it. Or, leave the table if you can't handle it."

I dislike Hexblade. I dislike mostly because what was actually needed was a small tweak to pact of the blade. But if someone picks one at our table I suspect I'll put up with it.

Meanwhile I can always hope they'll have a page or two in Tasha providing example DCs. I'm not expecting it, but it's nice to think about. I was pleasantly surprised they gave example DCs for tool use in Xanathar, so it's possible.

There's a little something for everyone.

[Imbalance]

Tell the people who don't like Great Weapon Master and Sharpshooter to "Deal with it. Or, leave the table if you can't handle it."

Tell the people who don't like players dipping into Hexblade to "Deal with it. Or, leave the table if you can't handle it."

Tell the people who don't like the SCAG Cantrips to "Deal with it. Or, leave the table if you can't handle it."

Meanwhile I can always hope they'll have a page or two in Tasha providing example DCs. I'm not expecting it, but it's nice to think about. I was pleasantly surprised they gave example DCs for tool use in Xanathar, so it's possible.

I mean, yeah. That's what you do. Or, "don't buy this book if you don't like the content," "play a different system if you think the port is bad," basically, "this is how it is - make up your own mind if it suits your or not and move on." Because, "wah! You screwed up! Fix it for me!" has historically not been effective.

[Tanarii]

GwM/PAM/SS/CBE, SCAG Cantrips, and Hexblade are perfect examples of why DC example tables with very specific DCs for what are broadly variable tasks should never see print.

They are optional rules. And now that they have been printed, many people assume they're the default, and accuse people that don't like them or use them of badwrongfun.

[Pex]

GwM/PAM/SS/CBE, SCAG Cantrips, and Hexblade are perfect examples of why DC example tables with very specific DCs for what are broadly variable tasks should never see print.

They are optional rules. And now that they have been printed, many people assume they're the default, and accuse people that don't like them or use them of badwrongfun.

By that logic there shouldn't be rules for anything because someone somewhere won't like it.

There will be rules. There will be people who don't like a particular rule you like. What's badwrongfun is metaphrocally yelling at the people who don't like a rule you like how dare they. Good for you if you like 5E skill rules as is. Don't tell me I'm having badwrongfun for not liking them, or is it badwrongnotfun.

you = general you, not Tanarii specifically

I mean, yeah. That's what you do. Or, "don't buy this book if you don't like the content," "play a different system if you think the port is bad," basically, "this is how it is - make up your own mind if it suits your or not and move on." Because, "wah! You screwed up! Fix it for me!" has historically not been effective.

I'm not demanding 5E do anything. I'm only criticizing the choice they made, just like other people do for their pet peeves like Great Weapon Master or Hexblade dipping. When they ask for opinions in their surveys that's where I can tell them I'd like DC examples. I can only hope for the best they'll do so in the future.

But please, do tell the people who don't like Great Weapon Master and Hexblade dipping they're "wahing" all over the place. I'll wait.

I'll put it another way.

People complain about Great Weapon Master. I have no problem with it. I speak about how in games I play it's not taken by everyone. When it is taken it does not break the game. I disagree with the notion it's a universal fact the feat is broken. I do not tell people who don't like the feat they're wrong to not like it. I do not tell them to stop talking about how they don't like the feat. I deserve the same courtesy.

[Tanarii]

I wanna if you want to see it in action, look at this post where they assume that the new xanathars rule on identifying spells was always the rule, retroactively:
https://forums.giantitp.com/showsing...4&postcount=31

[Imbalance]

Look, I don't mean to be discourteous, so I apologize. But if we're talking courtesy, does it not seem more polite to keep this repeating discussion to its own thread rather than injecting it so frequently into unrelated topics? I haven't been on these boards very long, and this isn't the kind of place where I get very savvy on people's usernames. However, it didn't take long to start recognizing and scrolling right past when I see the avatar of the dude pointing the pistol because it gets to be the same complaint over and over again. And then it always turns into the same arguments and badwrongfun accusations. Again, I apologize. I don't even care about the argument itself, I just wish people's memories could include that they just said the same thing in a completely different thread the other day while I'm trying to read about the worst books in 5e.

[Pex]

Look, I don't mean to be discourteous, so I apologize. But if we're talking courtesy, does it not seem more polite to keep this repeating discussion to its own thread rather than injecting it so frequently into unrelated topics? I haven't been on these boards very long, and this isn't the kind of place where I get very savvy on people's usernames. However, it didn't take long to start recognizing and scrolling right past when I see the avatar of the dude pointing the pistol because it gets to be the same complaint over and over again. And then it always turns into the same arguments and badwrongfun accusations. Again, I apologize. I don't even care about the argument itself, I just wish people's memories could include that they just said the same thing in a completely different thread the other day while I'm trying to read about the worst books in 5e.

I wasn't the one who brought it up. Someone else commented on the lack of skill DCs as being a reason why he felt the Player's Handbook was the worst book and others commented he was wrong to do so. I agreed with his assessment that lack of skill DCs was a bother, but it wasn't enough a reason for me to declare the PHB the worst book. I agreed with his premise but not his conclusion. Others would not let it go and still insist we are wrong not to like the lack of skill DCs so here we are.

[Tanarii]

I wasn't the one who brought it up.

But it's a fair point (meaning for me too). Let's give it a week or so, and then start our own thread where we can go for round 20 or whatever of the endless argument.

[Amnestic]

Theros takes the cake for me - a setting that is just ancient greece with the serial numbers filed off, only two subclasses (neither of which are particularly exciting to me personally), only two new races (one of which, the satyr, have a questionable power level). No new spells. The piety system is interesting enough but it's hardly worth the price of admission. Given that some of Eberron's guild stuff is getting reprinted in the setting-neutral Tasha's if I'm remembering right, I wonder if Piety will get something similar down the line.

[MaxWilson]

GwM/PAM/SS/CBE, SCAG Cantrips, and Hexblade are perfect examples of why DC example tables with very specific DCs for what are broadly variable tasks should never see print.

They are optional rules. And now that they have been printed, many people assume they're the default, and accuse people that don't like them or use them of badwrongfun.

And yet, DMG spellpoints and Disarm are not widely used. Clearly it's possible to give DMs advice while keeping it off the players' radar.

I think all of the adventures are pretty bad (dreary and overlong cliches--I get more useful adventure content out of other game systems like Paranoia, Microscope and DramaSystem), but of the settings books that I bought not counting SCAG, Explorer's Guide to Wildemont is the worst and hardest to care about, while Exploring Eberron is the best. (Says the guy who was not an Eberron fan until he bought Rising From the Last War and was impressed by its quality.)

[Chauncymancer]

The problem is, the only people that would be interested would be ones with the same passion for mytholgy that I have - and they wouldnt be interested in fake zeus or fake charon, they'd want the Zeus and Charon (I myself don't care about the presented gods, except for inspiration for the actual things). And while you and I can incorporate Zeus or Hades in our games, I do understand a company's reluctance to do so, as classic gods did serious sexual crimes that have been horribly unjustifiable since always.

Yeah, on a local level we can pretend it never happened and make it so in our games, but I do understand WotC reluctance to use the actual Deities.

But all the names are changed to a make believe culture that seems afraid it might get sued by ancient Greeks. (There is no copyright on Greek mythology). The only real work was done on the deity system and the rest was just lazy.

WotC actual goal in using their own thinly veiled deities is that this book is a tie-in to a pre-existing game and novel setting and you want to draw specifically and explicitly on that IP.

[NorthernPhoenix]

They actually, close to objectively worst made book is probably the original version of Tyranny of Dragons.

But to me personally, any of the books with clear powercreep are far worse.

[Tanarii]

And yet, DMG spellpoints and Disarm are not widely used. Clearly it's possible to give DMs advice while keeping it off the players' radar.

All they'd have to do is put it in the DMG's using Running the Game chapter. Not even DMs read that.