Post/Author/DateTime	Post
#1 JadePH0ENIX Apr 29, 2015 15:41:39	Hi folks, before someone get's this wrong: We played the 5th edition twice so far and we really love it. That being said there are a couple of things we would like to see improved in the PHB (maybe in a later print ?).   The Index Every good RPG book should have a good index. The PHB has an index, but it's not a very good one... looking up "tracking" for example it does NOT give you a page but tells you to look under "travel" instead (which will give you a page number). Why not just save some time and print that page number right away under "tracking" ?   I get it that it makes sense to save some material to put into the Dungeon Master's Guide (DMG). But things get frustrating when you get back to the previous example. You look for "tracking" which points you to "travel" which points you to page 183 which points out that the rules for tracking are actually in the DMG. Seriously ? If you absolutely CAN'T put tracking rules in the PHB it would save quite some time and frustration if you put something like "Tracking, see DMG page XY" in the index (the actual page please, not just the chapter).   The same goes for "directions" given in the book itself. For example: The chapter about the "Monk weapon" tells you to use the normal weapon statistics in chapter 5. Why not just give the page number of the weapon table ? Spellcasters are often directed to this or that chapter. Why not give them page numbers to make things even easier ?   Also missing is a list of which spells belongs to which schools of magic. Might not be a big deal for some of the caster classes, but try building an Eldritch Knight and you end up going back and forth between the list of Wizard spells and the individual spell descriptions to find out to which school of magic they belong. Why not sort the spell-list like the 3.5 Edition did ? Again it would save players quite a bit of work and time. Time you could be actually playing the game. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ None of these faults really "break" the game for us, but they are a bit annoying and I would like it if future prints would do this a bit better. The 5th edition is really good. Therefore the rulebooks should reflect that ;)
#2 Farmer42 Apr 29, 2015 16:21:57	JadePH0ENIX wrote:
#3 pukunui Apr 29, 2015 16:33:34	Yeah, the index could've been put together better. And WotC has sort of acknowledged that they goofed on the spell list not including the spell schools (note how the spell list included in the new Elemental Evil products does list the school in parentheses after each spell?).
#4 CCS Apr 29, 2015 17:47:23	JadePH0ENIX wrote:
#5 SirAntoine Apr 29, 2015 17:52:45	The book is badly written and organized, yes.
#6 pukunui Apr 29, 2015 17:57:00	SirAntoine wrote:
#7 AaronOfBarbaria Apr 29, 2015 18:27:49	JadePH0ENIX wrote:
(Reply to #6) AaronOfBarbaria	pukunui wrote:
#9 pukunui Apr 29, 2015 18:51:48	AaronOfBarbaria wrote:
#10 Wuzzard Apr 29, 2015 19:04:05	AaronOfBarbaria wrote:
#11 AaronOfBarbaria Apr 29, 2015 19:42:09	Wuzzard, I don't know how much you use inDesign, by I've missed my own find and selectively replace of placeholders - so it doesn't surprise me when some with a deadline does the same.
#12 Grazel Apr 29, 2015 20:13:31	Wuzzard wrote:
#13 Zardnaar Apr 29, 2015 20:56:42	AaronOfBarbaria wrote:
#14 MechaPilot Apr 29, 2015 20:58:46	Zardnaar wrote:
#15 Zardnaar Apr 29, 2015 21:06:53	MechaPilot wrote:
#16 MechaPilot Apr 29, 2015 21:11:58	Zardnaar wrote:
(Reply to #12) Travesty	Grazel wrote:
#18 lawrencehoy Apr 29, 2015 21:45:31	JadePH0ENIX wrote:
#19 pukunui Apr 29, 2015 22:09:31	lawrencehoy wrote:
#20 SirAntoine Apr 29, 2015 22:15:18	They make omissions like these out of carelessness or haste.  If it was a labor of love, it wouldn't be so.  I venture to say that 9 out of 10 fans would have done a much better job, even with no experience publishing.
#21 HoboJustice Apr 29, 2015 22:49:10	pukunui wrote:
#22 Brock_Landers Apr 29, 2015 23:21:35	MechaPilot wrote:
#23 lawrencehoy Apr 29, 2015 23:50:18	pukunui wrote:
#24 lawrencehoy Apr 29, 2015 23:55:10	SirAntoine wrote:
#25 Brock_Landers Apr 29, 2015 23:58:36	There is always something (or several) they realise they should have included/changed on day of release, like in 4th Ed, they realised Ongoing Damage should occur at the end of your turn, not the beginning.
#26 SirAntoine Apr 30, 2015 0:07:51	lawrencehoy wrote:
#27 Brock_Landers Apr 30, 2015 0:08:34	SirAntoine wrote:
#28 SirAntoine Apr 30, 2015 0:22:29	Brock_Landers wrote:
#29 mrpopstar Apr 30, 2015 5:29:03	I think I was the first person who was critical of the index here in the forums. I agree that there are a lot of dynamic tools that simplify the process.     I wish the pages were physically tabbed at each chapter the way that large dictionaries are physically tabbed at each letter (with the cutouts revealing the chapter number and allowing for quick thumb-throughs without the use of stickies).
#30 Razintarr Apr 30, 2015 6:30:30	JadePH0ENIX wrote:
#31 Ralif_Redhammer Apr 30, 2015 7:46:55	I love the PHB quite a bit, but yeah, the Index bugs me. And funny you should mention the Eldritch Knight – we have one in my campaign and indeed, he’s been having trouble with the spell list.
#32 FFSAA Apr 30, 2015 9:03:04	It'd be nice if there was a PDF.  Many of those problems would go away.
#33 DaomSlayer Apr 30, 2015 9:09:13	There are PDFs. You can also scan in your own books and OCR them. It doesn't take that long.   Mostly you need it for the spell section of the PHB, the rest you can look up in the physical books. When I play a caster, I just photocopy all the pages of the spells I need and cut them into a spellbook. It's fun. You can also buy spell cards now I think. That's even better.
#34 ChrisCarlson Apr 30, 2015 10:53:39	Zardnaar wrote:
#35 Brock_Landers Apr 30, 2015 11:08:20	ChrisCarlson wrote:
(Reply to #13) AaronOfBarbaria	Zardnaar wrote:
#37 Coredump00 Apr 30, 2015 11:35:55	IIRC, the 1E DMG had an index that gave page numbers for both the DMG and the PHB.  It was a really handy feature.    Advantage   7, 55, 171-175, 213, 288   The bold entries were in the DMG, the plain were in the PHB.   My only real complaint about the index is that they used some microscopic point font.... gettin' old over here....
#38 Brock_Landers Apr 30, 2015 11:38:32	The most logical way, generally, for any laymen (most DMs/players of this game), is to look up things, alphabetically, not some nerdy format.
(Reply to #38) AaronOfBarbaria	Brock_Landers wrote:
#40 HoboJustice Apr 30, 2015 16:56:18	lawrencehoy wrote:
#41 arnwolf666 Apr 30, 2015 18:47:57	As much as I argue with people on these boards, they made a darn good game.  I know I will be playing it for years.  I still play PF with some people who like PF.  PF is a good game for certain types of players, but I like 5E maybe better than any edition.  I have my little nitpicks like concentration and no metamagic for wizard.  But the organization of the PHB is real bad.
#42 Ath-kethin Apr 30, 2015 19:19:02	JadePH0ENIX wrote:
#43 Brock_Landers Apr 30, 2015 22:10:57	AaronOfBarbaria wrote:
#44 Brock_Landers Apr 30, 2015 22:45:17	Ath-kethin wrote:
#45 kalil Apr 30, 2015 23:13:48	I know comparing editions is against the CoC. But I really wish they had brought the person who made the index for the 4e books back in. Say what you will about the contents of the books but the 4e core books had GREAT index facilities.
#46 lawrencehoy Apr 30, 2015 23:42:41	SirAntoine wrote:
#47 lawrencehoy Apr 30, 2015 23:43:56	HoboJustice wrote:
#48 ORC_Cricket Apr 30, 2015 23:48:56	We’ve removed content from this thread because of a violation of the Code of Conduct.   You can review the Code here: http://company.wizards.com/conduct   Please keep your posts polite, on-topic, and refrain from making personal attacks. You are welcome to disagree with one another but please do so respectfully and constructively.   Remember, a community is a joint effort of all those involved, and while we want intelligent meaningful and productive banter to ensue we also need it to be polite and considerate of others.     Thank you for your time and support as we continue to try and make a great community for everyone.
#49 Zardnaar May 01, 2015 3:50:09	I don't think it is comparing editions saying you like XYZ feature from ABC edition although it would depend on the tone I suppose.
(Reply to #49) AaronOfBarbaria	Zardnaar wrote:
#51 Brock_Landers May 01, 2015 14:23:38	...lot of Xs,,,
(Reply to #51) Farmer42	Brock_Landers wrote:
(Reply to #51) AaronOfBarbaria	Brock_Landers wrote:
#54 XunValDorl_of_HouseKilsek May 01, 2015 15:38:41	kalil wrote:
#55 SirAntoine May 02, 2015 4:25:51	lawrencehoy wrote:
#56 ChrisCarlson May 02, 2015 7:41:48	SirAntoine wrote:
#57 Mistwell May 02, 2015 9:18:27	SirAntoine wrote:
#58 Azzy1974 May 02, 2015 18:40:09	To the OP, yeah I agree that those are things that could have been handled better (along with other reference and organizational impilentations, some of which have been mentioned by other posters). I've run into similar nitpicks with the books while I'm DMing. We do have to give them an out on not referencing page numbers of the DMG in the PHB's index, though—the DMG wasn't even finished when the PHB went to print!
(Reply to #57) Azzy1974	Mistwell wrote:
#60 SirAntoine May 02, 2015 21:05:48	Mistwell wrote:
#61 SirAntoine May 02, 2015 20:42:39	ChrisCarlson wrote:
#62 MechaPilot May 02, 2015 20:48:22	SirAntoine wrote:
#63 SirAntoine May 02, 2015 21:04:05	MechaPilot wrote:
#64 MechaPilot May 02, 2015 21:14:17	SirAntoine wrote:
#65 Brock_Landers May 02, 2015 23:16:00	SirAntoine wrote:
#66 Farmer42 May 02, 2015 23:24:49	I'm willing to bet at least one of them has to do with the paladin class.
#67 SirAntoine May 02, 2015 23:38:37	Brock_Landers wrote:
#68 JohnLynch May 02, 2015 23:50:05	SirAntoine wrote:
#69 SirAntoine May 03, 2015 0:11:37	JohnLynch wrote:
#70 Brock_Landers May 03, 2015 0:12:07	SirAntoine wrote:
#71 SirAntoine May 03, 2015 0:16:14	Brock_Landers wrote:
#72 Brock_Landers May 03, 2015 0:30:08	SirAntoine wrote:
#73 SirAntoine May 03, 2015 0:34:13	Brock_Landers wrote:
#74 Brock_Landers May 03, 2015 1:00:15	SirAntoine wrote:
#75 SirAntoine May 03, 2015 1:04:56	Brock_Landers wrote:
#76 Brock_Landers May 03, 2015 1:12:44	SirAntoine wrote:
#77 SirAntoine May 03, 2015 1:15:40	Brock_Landers wrote:
#78 Brock_Landers May 03, 2015 1:21:30	SirAntoine wrote:
#79 JadePH0ENIX May 03, 2015 8:22:49	Maybe open another thread about why you think having a non-LG paladin is bad ?   I for one do agree on the theory that this is a design descision and not a mistake.
#80 Farland May 03, 2015 9:53:16	I could not agree more about the index.  It is terrible.  How much effort would if have taken to put the page numbers in, instead of all the "see x" references.  Also, it is not very intuitive.
#81 SirAntoine May 04, 2015 1:15:30	JadePH0ENIX wrote:
#82 ORC_Nashira May 04, 2015 1:37:53	I've removed content from this thread because flaming/baiting is a violation of the Code of Conduct. You can review the Code of Conduct here: http://www.wizards.com/Company/About.aspx?x=wz_company_about_codeofconduct&menu=Awards   Please remember to keep posts polite, on topic and avoid baiting your fellow posters. We're all here to discuss the merits or flaws and we're all entitled to our opinions.
#83 lawrencehoy May 04, 2015 2:49:18	SirAntoine wrote:
#84 mellored May 04, 2015 6:41:36
#85 The_White_Sorcerer May 04, 2015 10:02:22	The biggest blatant mistakes in the PHB are having more than three alignments and allowing all races to be all classes. Not to mention allowing lawful good paladins, yuck. All true paladins are of the Lawful alignment!
#86 ChrisCarlson May 04, 2015 10:42:09	The_White_Sorcerer wrote:
(Reply to #86) Farmer42	ChrisCarlson wrote:
#88 ChrisCarlson May 04, 2015 11:09:25	Farmer42 wrote:
(Reply to #88) Farmer42	ChrisCarlson wrote: