Do you feel the PHB has done an adequate job of describing each class for new players?
You may not agree with me, but when I read the class descriptions I can't help but feel that they fail to inform new players exactly what the class represents. The description skirts around the subject a bit too much and never seems to answer the question.
For example, take the Paladin Class description and compare it to the description listed in previous editions. When I read the sentance descibing the dwarven sneak attack, I thought they had some how mixed up the Paladin description with the assassin description. It gives the reader a very vague understanding of what the Paladin class encompasses.
Here is how my 2e book describes the paladin.
"The paladin is a noble and heroic warrior, the symbol of all that is right and true in the world. As such, he has high ideals that he must maintain at all times. Throughout legend and history there are many heroes who could be called paladins: Roland and the 12 Peers of Charlemagne, Sir Lancelot, Sir Gawain, and Sir Galahad are all examples of the class. However, many brave and heroic soldiers have tried and failed to live up to the ideals of the paladin. It is not an easy task!"
Now, you many not agree with this description for the paladin, but at least it informs the player in the very first paragraph. IMO, the 5e PHB fails to do that.
dmgorgon wrote:
spelley wrote:
Given the way that the classes are structured now i'm not sure how you're supposed to summarise all three oaths as one thing right at the beginning.
If you use the old way of doing it then the Oath of ancients still mostly fits but the Oath of Vengenace contradicts the classical view of the class. So do you generalizse at first and then note the exceptions or give a rough overview and then get more specific on each oath?
Seems like a taste thing at that point.
Also don't be Spoony. That rarely ends well for anyone involved.
Do they do it in the first paragraph? No.
Each of the classes has 3 paragraphs at the start that are "story bits" general covering each of the subclasses or interpretations of the class.
Overall though, yeah, I think they defined the paladin very very well. Epecially since for me, they've defined a new and interesting way to see them.
It is the paladin's oath that defines them, a devotion or vow that is so powerful and so strictly followed that it imbues them with supernatural strength and eventually warps their bodies into more perfect forms suited to following their particular oath. I LOVE IT 
CetteHamsterLa wrote:
From my latest adventure into the world of movies I have not seen yet (Oh my word I want to see Studio Ghibli's Tale of Princess Kaguya so much you do not even know), I came across the best way to describe wizards
A video
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7PvJ1zBJ-us
I think so.
Besides, pretty much anyone who will actually try to play 5e, play it regularly, and pay money for its rulebooks, is someone who already is either a) into TTRPGS (including older editions of D&D) or b) into RPG/MMO video games, or c) fantasy fiction/literature. Or all 3, or 2 of the three...
These people all get the tropes and stereotypes already, and are just looking for D&D 5e's specific take on them.
Let's be honest. No one who has never played or enjoyed such games/forms of entertainment, nor even had friends or family who have, is never going to get into D&D.