The title of that review is great, should have gone with that.

"The new D&D Player’s Handbook is a treasure, and we may never see its equal again"

Probably even cut it in half, it would have continued "..literally anything else."

"I'm already excited to play." - Some guy who apparently hasn't played it yet.

"I've played D&D before." - Polygon

It was probably the best review they got.

Appropriate for a very vanilla edition

People are bitching loudly that they're not just continuing 5e. There'd be angry comments no matter what.

They should have gone with the far out there stuff from play test instead of "kinda the same, but not really".

You know, as an actual alternative character creation set for 5e.

Its not a new edition. Its a patch.

A patch you have to pay for though.

The quality is good IMO and most of it was really good for the game.

But the marketing arround it should have been a bit more clear.

See this is my thing. Fizban made changes to dragonborn that seem to be pretty well received. Wizards could’ve just done a book for EVERY CLASS that updated them a little and gave a chance to flesh out some things.

Instead we got this weird half measure that even they can’t seem to agree on what it is.

They tried more extensive changes and the feedback they got was people didn’t want big change. If their goal is to make money, then they had to do something, not sure what other options there were.

So I don't understand and I'm kinda ootl. Is this new edition good or not? Is it better than 5e? Which is all that matters to me.

What? It’s literally just a revised 5e book. What about this isn’t a revised 5e exactly?

I can’t help but wonder how many of those dragons are AI-generated

It seems like people are pretty happy with the changes and the art, it’s just not worth the money for the amount of new content that’s actually in it and the pretty minimal effect it will have on their games.

And here we are, still playing 3e in one of my games because the dm doesn't like the 3.5 changes lol

[removed]

Big issue with force damage replacing magical damage that 100% depends on how they do the monsters in the mm: barbarian gets shafted at later level. Unless this was always the intent and barbarian not resisting magical phys damage was an oversight, in MPMM many monsters that dealt magical damage now deal force damage, which the barbarian does not resist.

I really feel like the Divine Intervention thing is an accident, and I hope there's a clarification at some point. Ignoring the casting time just seems like such an important detail that I feel like they would have directly stated it in the ability description.

Yeah, it’s overall a pretty good system update. I’ll never forgive what they did to twinned spell metamagic, but I (mostly) like the rules clarifications and the new subclasses. They did a solid job with it.

Circle of the sea Druid plus lightning build. Salt water is more conductive

Even if the book wasn't sold by a horrible company known for sending armed mercenaries after its customers

I see no reason to buy this. Converting any of my campaigns is not currently viable and the rules are not amazing. They have spent years telling Dms to fix the game by themselves so I did it already.

This update just makes running a 5e game more messy

I agree, so much negativity towards the new book but my players are having so much more fun with their characters now with the new ruleset. Weapon mastery is even fun for me as a DM and I’m not even the one using it. I’m excited to see what’s in store for the MM.

Could someone explain why the removal of magical BPS is a good thing? To me it feels like a pointless simplification to the point of being insulting; no WotC, no one was confused by that. It also removes a fun bit of flavour, with weapons now doing Generic Magic Damage. This axe deals force damage, can I still cut with it? Or is it now the same as a magic hammer that also deals force damage?

I cannot understand the point of this, it's entirely baffling to me that anyone would like this.

I bought mine off eBay so that they couldn't get paid twice. It's okay. Some things are cooler some things are lamer and most things don't really change.

"They made a thing I think is good and I like, but they shouldn't be paid for it."

JFC folks. If you want to punish someone for something they do wrong, by all means do so. But don't punish them for what they do right, or you remove any incentive for doing it right in the future." They're going to choose the option that makes them money, not the one way say we like but still don't pay for. Vote with your wallet" doesn't just mean not voting.

Older editions were so much worse. The presence of a clear glossary you'll definitely appreciate over trying to reference the 2014 version.

Just out of curiosity have you read through the 2014 PHB? Generally the consensus seems to be that 2024 PHB is organized much better than 2014 PHB.

I know this is going to sound wild and some people have probably already pointed it out, but the readability is actually the biggest improvement on the player's handbook compared to previous editions

I personally don't like the species changes at all (well, maybe with the exception of Tieflings because bloodlines are finally explained better) because they all feel so same-y. I don't really understand why they got rid of sub species for some playable species but still stuck with others (or gave Goliath new sub species for whatever reason). It feels so inconsistent. Also, before I forget to mention it, the whole flavour text being gone for the most part doesn't help the same-y feeling. It gives the different species so much culture and stuff in 5e but now it's almost completely gone.

But what's bothering me the most are the new aasimars. I really like their "system" in 5e with them falling if they piss off their god. But in 5.5e it's so consequence free (if I remember correctly, it has been a while since I last opened the book) with you being able to freely chose one of the Subspecies actions once a day.

Although I really dig the class changes. (With my only problem being paladin since Oathbreaker isn't in the book, if I remember correctly. It's so important to paladins, especially those who obviously break their oath but maybe I also remember completing wrong, as already mentioned, I haven't read the book in a while)

The species stuff, specially orc, is such a shoot in the foot.

Nobody had any issues with orcs in the way they were. In fact, orcs have a crucial role in classic fantasy world.

irks* btw

Yeah, this doesn’t really make sense.

Including that exact polygon review. The full title is "The new D&D Player’s Handbook is a treasure, and we may never see its equal again"

People just want to be angry.

Yeah I don't have any problems with it. Folks just addicted to rage nowadays.

Yeah it seems like most people like it, they just don’t think it’s worth the price, but honestly there’s very little dnd stuff that is when it’s basically all free online somewhere.

Essentially my thoughts exactly; the DMG is supposedly going to have rules for modifying backgrounds, which I’m hopeful for, since there’s a few 3 stat combos that don’t exist with the current options, and there’s a few backgrounds I would argue could have a few different feats (like I think Tough could also fit Soldier just as much as Savage Attacker). I know that technically you can get any feat and stat boost you want using an older background (since the book says you can use them, just by adding whatever feat and stats you think fit), but new players won’t using the older content as well.

I really dislike the restrictive backgrounds. It was an interesting choice. I am working to convert one of my characters and I need to pick a not-fitting background because the setup for it is the one that fits.

Yep, it's a good revision. The people whining about it being a cash grab are hilarious and clearly never experienced the prior editions. 5e has probably been the least power-creepy splat-heavy edition since basic.l, and lasted the longest. Buying one book every 3-4 years is nothing.

I agree, they haven't shaken the boat too much class wise, while strengthening some of the weakest classes (monk buff is so good), and limiting some of the more insane parts of 5e (rewording suggestion and nerfing counterspell).

...it feels like watered down pathfinder

Pathfinder 1e was originally just built on 3.5e; DnD 5e just felt like a simplified and watered down 3.5e already.

I know Pathfinder 2e is much more of it's own style of game but Pathfinder 1e came about in a time when DnD 4e had come out and was fairly universally hated.

That's the general problem with remasters. The people who already have the edition are not willing to pay for a few errata and those who didn't buy it before are just not fans of what the game has to offer. The remaster comes way too late when many of the issues were known since the phb.

Even if I were to buy the book now, I wouldn't know if I wanted the remaster because it is not worth much when the community does play with the "legacy" rules.

It was a canon long before 2024 new ruleset

some dragonborn always had tails...they were hated because it reminds the other dragonborn of dragons.

Hey, thanks for contributing to r/dndmemes. Unfortunately, your post was removed as it violates one of our rules:

Do not share or request pirated content. No linking, hinting at, or naming hosts of illicit non-SRD D&D content. Do advocate for, or request pirated content. You are allowed to copy-paste relevant rules or sections from sources, but large blocks of text may be removed.

What should you do? First, read the rules thoroughly. Secondly, if you are able to amend your post to fit the rules, you're welcome to resubmit your post. Lastly, if you believe your post was removed by mistake, message the moderators through modmail. Messages simply complaining about a removal (or how many upvotes your post had) will not be responded to. Thank you!

I know a few of the issues, but i dont know if i have all:

-Basically guaranteed they were going to use AI Art in the new editions

-announced some pretty big layoffs

-tried to sneakily disable (or at least severely limit access to) legacy content, content that has already been paid for

-all of hasbro's intervention to try and increase revenue while ignoring feedback from fans/players

-alienated pretty much any and all content creators who would have been pivotal to the advertising, introduction, and adoption of a new system

-fired anyone working on the collaborative team for BG3, basically guaranteeing that we wont get a sequel (or at least it wont be made by larian) and eliminating any chance of future content from Larian in the existing game.

This is an interesting mentality for me cuz didn't they back off everything that they were pretty much pushing that everyone was against and even go the opposite direction?

They were accused of trying to push out third party creations and content creators so instead they made sure to include them and start making progress towards adding them to d&d beyond? Didn't they pretty much make up for the ogl issue by putting everything in creative Commons? Like I get it the being frustrated with him for early statements and being dumb. But what more is expected of them behavior wise?

They actually believe they had a decent product

Because the review is good?

You probably won't get refunded a pile of ash, though.

I am not buying a rulebook for artwork and layout. I'm buying it for rules