So we're just two years out from 5.5/6.0. WOTC has acquired DDB. Seems like a good place and time to start making wishlists/arguments for how the next set of books should be organized/present the material.
Please note this is NOTa thread to discussion the actual rules or mechanics of the game. I'm talking solely about how the actual information is organized and presented in the books.
I have three right off the bat:
Minimize the "parchment" look to the pages. I really like the headers and footers, and some subtle staining or blotching to the pages...but keep them mostly white, for easy reading. Basically: more like Tasha's and Xanathar's pages, and less like the Players Handbook.
Spells: please, please, PLEASEfor the love of all that is holy organize the spell descriptions alpha by name by level. The spell descriptions are primarily needed/perused when characters level up, which means they're going to be interested in reading spells for the NEW level they can now cast in. Having ALL spells listed only alpha by name produces a tedious amount of page flipping, which could be minimized by grouping them by level first, and then alpha by name. (I do NOT want them segregated the way they were back in 1E; that also produced a lot of page flipping due to listings that said "Please see the description of the X level [Class] spell.")
Index: Absolutely do NOT force searchers to go to ANOTHER index listing. Don't have the Index say "Attack action See under action." Just list the bloody page number, yes? Or say "Attack action see action 192-193" or something like that. The indices, as given in the core 5E books, are borderline useless.
I don't really feel the Spell section is that bad myself, but then again I don't play a lot of spellcasters.
I would say organize them by class and color code the pages for each class to make an "index" that way since you're open to change page colors but that would still lead to a lot of flipping and repeated material since multiple classes can cast the same spell. Honestly in regards to page flipping I just think players need to do better on writing down the page number at least for the spell they want to cast. I know the list of spells which a PC can cast for some people can be long and so writing them on the character sheet page isn't an option always but you can write a page number at least so you don't spend as long in the book; then again this kind of comes down to table etiquette period you can argue - you know your turn is coming up, you have an idea of what spell you want to cast or at least the level so look at the page number you should have down for reference and start flipping so by the time we get to you you have an idea of which spell you will use. You could also say it's good to have a pre-determined loadout 1) Support, 2) Offense, and 3) AOE go to so you have a quick option for the changing battlefield. They do make the spellcaster card packs now so if you have them ready to go in a binder it's less flipping too with a loadout so I'm fine with Spells saying as it is myself.
This may not be in the main theme of exactly what you were asking but again my big thing I want to see in the future, and now, is a focus on more adventure books because the supplement side feels packed for the hobby but the adventure selections not so much with regards to 5e. Just looking at catalogues it feels like this is one area where the older editions shined - they have more campaign adventures. Maybe it's just because they've all been lumped together now as older editions and in reality they're few and far between also, but yeah I want more adventures because I think all the supplement stuff has the current rules and character options covered for a good few years into even 6e; give me worlds to play the rules in and certainly more high level adventures since very few adventures in 5e do that even now!
For adventure books I'd recommend a lore front section with a few pages of history to the setting, then go into the story and all the notes DMs need there such as level maps and NPC information (do a "See page X" for each NPC/monster at the back of the book), have a NPC section with stat blocks for those that are pre-written and important to the story, then a "monster" section, and then end with your random tables for the adventure and maps which you can tear out if there's a city one like Waterdeep has in it.
I'm a player not a DM so they may already be bound like this, but if they aren't I think it makes good sense to organize them as so so it's like world first, then story, and in the back the details for story elements and finally physical bonuses if the company grants you any.
If they do yet more supplement books then definitely group it by features - tables together, subclasses together, new races together and so on instead of having little bits in each part. It's a collection of features not a story book. Maybe throw in some artwork to break up the sections and of course at the very start of all books put an index so if someone wants to jump to a specific section they can - page numbers are helpful items!
I will agree that when doing an index of any kind don't have "see under" because it's just annoying - put the page number because that's what we really want since you aren't going to give us the answer directly here.
One of the main things I want is consistency. There are teeny tiny things that bug me... like how proficiencies of weapons are plural, but each other proficiency of equipment, or gift of weapons is singular. It should all just he singular.
Example: Weapon proficiency: daggers, sickles, quarterstaffs. Tool proficiencies: Herbalism kit. Just list them all singular.
I'm with the OP about them being By Level, then Alphabetical. I'd also like them to include the logos of classes who normally have it as part of their spell list. "I'm a cleric, so I'm going to look for the silver sun mace".
So I think that WoTC acquisition of DNDBeyond shouldn't really change the book layouts - they are very different mechanisms for presenting content. E.g. the book-form will still be easier to read long form/chapters (in my opnion), while ddb is excellent for fast looking up table content. However, books still need to make table content accessible, and ddb needs to make long-form text accessible too. So I would like to think that the two exercises remain fairly separated, in that they work with the same text, but the layout/organisation of the two are actually very different.
For books, I hope they retain the high quality of covers, arts, and paper, but also consider perhaps a slightly different format for shorter/smaller books (e.g. interested to see how the spelljammer books come out being only around 65 pages each).
For digital (which I guess most people take to mean dndbeyond - but they do still sell content to other platforms as well), being able to incorporate the content much earlier on, should hopefully provide some opportunities to optimise blocks of text and rules for digital distribution. But I genuinely hope that this does not translate into primacy, where books effectively just become a printout of pages optimised for digital content. By this I mean that a lot of content can be cross-referenced very effectively in digital format across a book, or even multiple books (that's really where it shines in my opinion - gathering up content from multiple books), but would still require either foot notes or an appendix format in a physical book.
There are some module specific things that very much could be improved, by improving DM overview maps, including an NPC register (e.g. a table of name, appearance, statblock reference, and location within the module for example), but recognise that this might be a separate discussion since it does tend to vary a fair bit between modules.
Personally, I would not like the spells to be subdivided further. There's already a table for characters to look up spells by class and level in the spell section. From there, having a global alphabetized lookup actually makes it easier to find.
If you were to try and do it by class, you would end up repeating a lot of spells that overlap - growing the spell section to (even) more monstrous page counts. Organinsing them by level is really only relevant during levelling up. At any other time you would want to look up a spell during sessions, having to locate a specific level section followed by alphabetic spells, I think would actually slow down things.
I'd have to agree on the spell lists getting actually organized, as opposed to a complete list of all spells sorted by name only. The level>alphabetical notion seems to make the most sense as they would at least be grouped by level, cutting at LEAST 1/2 the time it currently takes to select spells now. I am guessing MOST of this will end up negated as they are saying it will all be digital going forward and they will simply have the spell lists as they do now, with a link to details. Great, so long as we can get wi-fi at all times, a bit less useful in power outages and such, unless we can actually download the entire thing to use offline.
More notable and clear statements in all aspects that can(should?) be customized by DM/Player agreements. This would cover ASI assignment, alignment, languages and more, essentially ALL the bits involved in making a character, to ensure EVERYONE KNEW the listed details about the PC options are GUIDELINES and NOT hardcore rules. This was in the original stuff, but because people don't read every line in their books there was a lot of arguing over customizing a character to be the character YOU wanted to play. This would include a lengthy introduction to any kind of Monster Manual offered, where it would say at the very beginning, these characteristics, ESPECIALLY the lore, are simply guidelines and "normal" for different settings. Pointing out clearly that while Orcs are rampaging, savage lunatics on world A, on world B they are more scholars and researchers, showing that any kind of Orcs you use in your setting is the RIGHT ONE.
A proper, fleshed out guide or ruleset for crafting. Yeah, there are scattered bits and guidelines to allow a DM to create a set of crafting rules, but some form of base should be available. Leatherworking, Blacksmithing and more are all established crafts and putting out a set of basic rules, surrounding the knowledge we have (over 100 years worth) should be within reach. DM's could then build on an existing platform instead of having to re-create the wheel any time players show interest in crafting. Within this ruleset we could even offer a basic guide for how spellcasters might be able to learn how to craft or create new spells as well, but that may well be overreaching.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Talk to your Players.Talk to your DM. If more people used this advice, there would be 24.74% fewer threads on Tactics, Rules and DM discussions.
I wish races were organized alphabetically. In my PHB dragonborn comes after all the Half-X races.
I fully support this as Dragonborn for me comes after Human but before Half-elf and half-orc.
I wonder why these last 3 are out of order? 🤔 Half-elf and half-orc should come before Human and Dragonborn should definitely come before all of them! The classes in my book are organized so why not the races?
Leatherworking, Blacksmithing and more are all established crafts and putting out a set of basic rules, surrounding the knowledge we have (over 100 years worth) should be within reach.
I'd like to see text in Equipment that suggests how you can use tool proficiencies because they feel pretty pointless to me at this time beyond adding a little flavor to your character.
Is brewing supplies just for beer or can it be used for other things such as potions? If you're magical do you roll builds with advantage for crafting potions? Beyond armor builds and repairs what can blacksmith tools be used for in the game? The book tells you the components in each kit but not really ideas on how to use them in game. I don't know if there's suggestions in the adventure books either to say "If PC has blacksmith tools they can attempt to remove secret door located here with it - roll neutral" or not but it feels like flavor additions more than game features based on how much I see them used in games.
If someone does use a tool kit there's usually a break in the game as people look up how that would rule and if it's possible to do what was suggested which can slow down the game; a set suggest text box for each tool kit or just a text box in general for how tools can be used and expanded would be nice so the DM can make a faster judgement call without fear of busting the game and everyone has an understanding of different ways to approach puzzles beyond avoid it, break it, or change it to work.
I would like to see the physical books list mosters by type, so group all the beasts in one section, all the celestials in another etc. Have themn listed alphabetically in each section but have a little box at the beginning of each section listing each monster in order of CR (if they keep it).
It would make things much easier to find a monster and go to the section dedicated to that type of monster, they almost did it with Dragons and Fiends, its just a shame beasts, monstrosities, celestials etc are all over the place.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
* Need a character idea? Search for "Rob76's Unused" in the Story and Lore section.
I’d like to see a mote clear split between flavor text and the mechanics. I’m pretty much all the spells, powers, etc. Just make it more clear when they’ve transitioned from fanciful description to nuts and bolts of how it works.
I wish races were organized alphabetically. In my PHB dragonborn comes after all the Half-X races.
I fully support this as Dragonborn for me comes after Human but before Half-elf and half-orc.
I wonder why these last 3 are out of order? 🤔 Half-elf and half-orc should come before Human and Dragonborn should definitely come before all of them! The classes in my book are organized so why not the races?
The reason the races aren't arranged alphabetically in the Player's Handbook is because they wanted to split the races into two sections: "Common" and "Rare" races. The Common Races are the ones from Tolkien (Dwarves, Elves, Halflings, Humans), and the Uncommon Races are the ones that didn't really come from Tolkien (Tieflings, Half-Elves, Half-Orcs, Gnomes, Dragonborn).
I personally think this distinction is stupid and goes against the idea of supporting a diverse array of D&D worlds this edition, but that's why they did it at the start of this edition. I would fully support getting rid of this formatting in the 5.5e PHB.
Personally, I would not like the spells to be subdivided further. There's already a table for characters to look up spells by class and level in the spell section. From there, having a global alphabetized lookup actually makes it easier to find.
If you were to try and do it by class, you would end up repeating a lot of spells that overlap - growing the spell section to (even) more monstrous page counts. Organinsing them by level is really only relevant during levelling up. At any other time you would want to look up a spell during sessions, having to locate a specific level section followed by alphabetic spells, I think would actually slow down things.
I don't want the spell descriptions divided by class! As I wrote in my original post, that was done in 1E and as you say: it led to too much page flipping, too many "See the spell description in the [X] class spells" nonsense.
I would like the descriptions alpha by title by level. I'm guessing most people look up spell descriptions in the books when leveling up, which means you want to know what spells of a specific level are available to you. To do that currently, you have to keep flipping back and forth from the tables to the descriptions. Adding a class tag to each description would mean no more flipping, and listing them alpha by level means you can more easily read just the spells you want to choose from.
It's not going to happen - I'm sure the books continue with the ALL spell descriptions given via alpha by title. But I wish they'd just segregate by level.
I’d like to see a mote clear split between flavor text and the mechanics. I’m pretty much all the spells, powers, etc. Just make it more clear when they’ve transitioned from fanciful description to nuts and bolts of how it works.
When I was re-writing the spells I felt this SOO HARD! The biggest problem are the Somatic Components which are part of the description. They feel like they're in the wrong part, because it's generally fluff, which you don't want in a spell.
Page numbers and indices are a must for D&D Beyond. It's so difficult to find the information I want because I need the chapter name and subheaders, not helping is the site jumping up and down when it loads up (that may well be a Firefox issue though, I can't confirm).
I'm generally happy with the physical books, what few of them I own, but there definitely needs to be more for the digital stuff if it's supposed to be quicker and easier like most digital products. Right now I hardly see the improvements over PDFs, save for a search function across the entire site.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Zero is the most important number in D&D: Session Zero sets the boundaries and the tone; Rule Zero dictates the Dungeon Master (DM) is the final arbiter; and Zero D&D is better than Bad D&D.
"Let us speak plainly now, and in earnest, for words mean little without the weight of conviction."
- The Assemblage of Houses, World of Warcraft
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
So we're just two years out from 5.5/6.0. WOTC has acquired DDB. Seems like a good place and time to start making wishlists/arguments for how the next set of books should be organized/present the material.
Please note this is NOT a thread to discussion the actual rules or mechanics of the game. I'm talking solely about how the actual information is organized and presented in the books.
I have three right off the bat:
I don't really feel the Spell section is that bad myself, but then again I don't play a lot of spellcasters.
I would say organize them by class and color code the pages for each class to make an "index" that way since you're open to change page colors but that would still lead to a lot of flipping and repeated material since multiple classes can cast the same spell. Honestly in regards to page flipping I just think players need to do better on writing down the page number at least for the spell they want to cast. I know the list of spells which a PC can cast for some people can be long and so writing them on the character sheet page isn't an option always but you can write a page number at least so you don't spend as long in the book; then again this kind of comes down to table etiquette period you can argue - you know your turn is coming up, you have an idea of what spell you want to cast or at least the level so look at the page number you should have down for reference and start flipping so by the time we get to you you have an idea of which spell you will use. You could also say it's good to have a pre-determined loadout 1) Support, 2) Offense, and 3) AOE go to so you have a quick option for the changing battlefield. They do make the spellcaster card packs now so if you have them ready to go in a binder it's less flipping too with a loadout so I'm fine with Spells saying as it is myself.
This may not be in the main theme of exactly what you were asking but again my big thing I want to see in the future, and now, is a focus on more adventure books because the supplement side feels packed for the hobby but the adventure selections not so much with regards to 5e. Just looking at catalogues it feels like this is one area where the older editions shined - they have more campaign adventures. Maybe it's just because they've all been lumped together now as older editions and in reality they're few and far between also, but yeah I want more adventures because I think all the supplement stuff has the current rules and character options covered for a good few years into even 6e; give me worlds to play the rules in and certainly more high level adventures since very few adventures in 5e do that even now!
For adventure books I'd recommend a lore front section with a few pages of history to the setting, then go into the story and all the notes DMs need there such as level maps and NPC information (do a "See page X" for each NPC/monster at the back of the book), have a NPC section with stat blocks for those that are pre-written and important to the story, then a "monster" section, and then end with your random tables for the adventure and maps which you can tear out if there's a city one like Waterdeep has in it.
I'm a player not a DM so they may already be bound like this, but if they aren't I think it makes good sense to organize them as so so it's like world first, then story, and in the back the details for story elements and finally physical bonuses if the company grants you any.
If they do yet more supplement books then definitely group it by features - tables together, subclasses together, new races together and so on instead of having little bits in each part. It's a collection of features not a story book. Maybe throw in some artwork to break up the sections and of course at the very start of all books put an index so if someone wants to jump to a specific section they can - page numbers are helpful items!
I will agree that when doing an index of any kind don't have "see under" because it's just annoying - put the page number because that's what we really want since you aren't going to give us the answer directly here.
One of the main things I want is consistency. There are teeny tiny things that bug me... like how proficiencies of weapons are plural, but each other proficiency of equipment, or gift of weapons is singular. It should all just he singular.
Example: Weapon proficiency: daggers, sickles, quarterstaffs. Tool proficiencies: Herbalism kit. Just list them all singular.
I'm with the OP about them being By Level, then Alphabetical. I'd also like them to include the logos of classes who normally have it as part of their spell list. "I'm a cleric, so I'm going to look for the silver sun mace".
So I think that WoTC acquisition of DNDBeyond shouldn't really change the book layouts - they are very different mechanisms for presenting content. E.g. the book-form will still be easier to read long form/chapters (in my opnion), while ddb is excellent for fast looking up table content. However, books still need to make table content accessible, and ddb needs to make long-form text accessible too. So I would like to think that the two exercises remain fairly separated, in that they work with the same text, but the layout/organisation of the two are actually very different.
For books, I hope they retain the high quality of covers, arts, and paper, but also consider perhaps a slightly different format for shorter/smaller books (e.g. interested to see how the spelljammer books come out being only around 65 pages each).
For digital (which I guess most people take to mean dndbeyond - but they do still sell content to other platforms as well), being able to incorporate the content much earlier on, should hopefully provide some opportunities to optimise blocks of text and rules for digital distribution. But I genuinely hope that this does not translate into primacy, where books effectively just become a printout of pages optimised for digital content. By this I mean that a lot of content can be cross-referenced very effectively in digital format across a book, or even multiple books (that's really where it shines in my opinion - gathering up content from multiple books), but would still require either foot notes or an appendix format in a physical book.
There are some module specific things that very much could be improved, by improving DM overview maps, including an NPC register (e.g. a table of name, appearance, statblock reference, and location within the module for example), but recognise that this might be a separate discussion since it does tend to vary a fair bit between modules.
Personally, I would not like the spells to be subdivided further. There's already a table for characters to look up spells by class and level in the spell section. From there, having a global alphabetized lookup actually makes it easier to find.
If you were to try and do it by class, you would end up repeating a lot of spells that overlap - growing the spell section to (even) more monstrous page counts. Organinsing them by level is really only relevant during levelling up. At any other time you would want to look up a spell during sessions, having to locate a specific level section followed by alphabetic spells, I think would actually slow down things.
I wish races were organized alphabetically. In my PHB dragonborn comes after all the Half-X races.
BoringBard's long and tedious posts somehow manage to enrapture audiences. How? Because he used Charm Person, the #1 bard spell!
He/him pronouns. Call me Bard. PROUD NERD!
Ever wanted to talk about your parties' worst mistakes? Do so HERE. What's your favorite class, why? Share & explain
HERE.I'd have to agree on the spell lists getting actually organized, as opposed to a complete list of all spells sorted by name only. The level>alphabetical notion seems to make the most sense as they would at least be grouped by level, cutting at LEAST 1/2 the time it currently takes to select spells now. I am guessing MOST of this will end up negated as they are saying it will all be digital going forward and they will simply have the spell lists as they do now, with a link to details. Great, so long as we can get wi-fi at all times, a bit less useful in power outages and such, unless we can actually download the entire thing to use offline.
More notable and clear statements in all aspects that can(should?) be customized by DM/Player agreements. This would cover ASI assignment, alignment, languages and more, essentially ALL the bits involved in making a character, to ensure EVERYONE KNEW the listed details about the PC options are GUIDELINES and NOT hardcore rules. This was in the original stuff, but because people don't read every line in their books there was a lot of arguing over customizing a character to be the character YOU wanted to play. This would include a lengthy introduction to any kind of Monster Manual offered, where it would say at the very beginning, these characteristics, ESPECIALLY the lore, are simply guidelines and "normal" for different settings. Pointing out clearly that while Orcs are rampaging, savage lunatics on world A, on world B they are more scholars and researchers, showing that any kind of Orcs you use in your setting is the RIGHT ONE.
A proper, fleshed out guide or ruleset for crafting. Yeah, there are scattered bits and guidelines to allow a DM to create a set of crafting rules, but some form of base should be available. Leatherworking, Blacksmithing and more are all established crafts and putting out a set of basic rules, surrounding the knowledge we have (over 100 years worth) should be within reach. DM's could then build on an existing platform instead of having to re-create the wheel any time players show interest in crafting. Within this ruleset we could even offer a basic guide for how spellcasters might be able to learn how to craft or create new spells as well, but that may well be overreaching.
Talk to your Players. Talk to your DM. If more people used this advice, there would be 24.74% fewer threads on Tactics, Rules and DM discussions.
I fully support this as Dragonborn for me comes after Human but before Half-elf and half-orc.
I wonder why these last 3 are out of order? 🤔 Half-elf and half-orc should come before Human and Dragonborn should definitely come before all of them! The classes in my book are organized so why not the races?
I'd like to see text in Equipment that suggests how you can use tool proficiencies because they feel pretty pointless to me at this time beyond adding a little flavor to your character.
Is brewing supplies just for beer or can it be used for other things such as potions? If you're magical do you roll builds with advantage for crafting potions? Beyond armor builds and repairs what can blacksmith tools be used for in the game? The book tells you the components in each kit but not really ideas on how to use them in game. I don't know if there's suggestions in the adventure books either to say "If PC has blacksmith tools they can attempt to remove secret door located here with it - roll neutral" or not but it feels like flavor additions more than game features based on how much I see them used in games.
If someone does use a tool kit there's usually a break in the game as people look up how that would rule and if it's possible to do what was suggested which can slow down the game; a set suggest text box for each tool kit or just a text box in general for how tools can be used and expanded would be nice so the DM can make a faster judgement call without fear of busting the game and everyone has an understanding of different ways to approach puzzles beyond avoid it, break it, or change it to work.
I would like to see the physical books list mosters by type, so group all the beasts in one section, all the celestials in another etc. Have themn listed alphabetically in each section but have a little box at the beginning of each section listing each monster in order of CR (if they keep it).
It would make things much easier to find a monster and go to the section dedicated to that type of monster, they almost did it with Dragons and Fiends, its just a shame beasts, monstrosities, celestials etc are all over the place.
I’d like to see a mote clear split between flavor text and the mechanics. I’m pretty much all the spells, powers, etc. Just make it more clear when they’ve transitioned from fanciful description to nuts and bolts of how it works.
The reason the races aren't arranged alphabetically in the Player's Handbook is because they wanted to split the races into two sections: "Common" and "Rare" races. The Common Races are the ones from Tolkien (Dwarves, Elves, Halflings, Humans), and the Uncommon Races are the ones that didn't really come from Tolkien (Tieflings, Half-Elves, Half-Orcs, Gnomes, Dragonborn).
I personally think this distinction is stupid and goes against the idea of supporting a diverse array of D&D worlds this edition, but that's why they did it at the start of this edition. I would fully support getting rid of this formatting in the 5.5e PHB.
Please check out my homebrew, I would appreciate feedback:
Spells, Monsters, Subclasses, Races, Arcknight Class, Occultist Class, World, Enigmatic Esoterica forms
I don't want the spell descriptions divided by class! As I wrote in my original post, that was done in 1E and as you say: it led to too much page flipping, too many "See the spell description in the [X] class spells" nonsense.
I would like the descriptions alpha by title by level. I'm guessing most people look up spell descriptions in the books when leveling up, which means you want to know what spells of a specific level are available to you. To do that currently, you have to keep flipping back and forth from the tables to the descriptions. Adding a class tag to each description would mean no more flipping, and listing them alpha by level means you can more easily read just the spells you want to choose from.
It's not going to happen - I'm sure the books continue with the ALL spell descriptions given via alpha by title. But I wish they'd just segregate by level.
When I was re-writing the spells I felt this SOO HARD! The biggest problem are the Somatic Components which are part of the description. They feel like they're in the wrong part, because it's generally fluff, which you don't want in a spell.
Page numbers and indices are a must for D&D Beyond. It's so difficult to find the information I want because I need the chapter name and subheaders, not helping is the site jumping up and down when it loads up (that may well be a Firefox issue though, I can't confirm).
I'm generally happy with the physical books, what few of them I own, but there definitely needs to be more for the digital stuff if it's supposed to be quicker and easier like most digital products. Right now I hardly see the improvements over PDFs, save for a search function across the entire site.
Zero is the most important number in D&D: Session Zero sets the boundaries and the tone; Rule Zero dictates the Dungeon Master (DM) is the final arbiter; and Zero D&D is better than Bad D&D.
"Let us speak plainly now, and in earnest, for words mean little without the weight of conviction."
- The Assemblage of Houses, World of Warcraft