Player's Handbook 2

DangerDwarf · Post by **DangerDwarf** » Mon Mar 23, 2009 2:08 am

I know most folks here don't care for 4e, but there's a couple of us who play. I picked up the PHB 2 the other day and figured I'd give my thoughts on it so far.

First, I was a little skeptical about the general idea behind the PHB. To me it's not too different than the whole "Complete" series that went along with 3e but I picked up the book regardless to give it a look.

First, the books adds 5 more races and 8 more classes to the 4e line-up.

The races are:

Deva

Gnome

Goliath

Half-Orc

Shifter

Of the new races, not entirely sure I care for the Deva or the Goliath. The gnomes of 4e are far more interesting to me than the gnomes of previous editions with their fey nature and what not. As a long time gnome hater, I must say this version is far less puntable for me so good job there. The shifters I was prepared to hate on principle, but they seem intriguing to me as well.

As far as classes go they have:

Avenger: Divine warrior type class who dish out divine retribution.

Barbarian: No explanation needed.

Bard: Again, you know what they are.

Druid: Actually a pretty cool take on the class.

Invoker: Reminds me kind of a divine sorcerer.

Shaman: Nifty primal healer type.

Sorcerer: Of the Dragon Magic or Wild Magic type.

Warden: A totemic type warrior.

Of the classes, I pretty much dig them but the verdict is still out on the Invoker and Sorcerer. I've not fully digested the nuances of each class but nothing jumped out to me as overly "Rah!"

The book also presents options for character backgrounds and guidelines on how they can have mechanical effects in the game. New feats and magic items geared primarily for the new classes.

Overall, I think the book was rather well done and I'll definitely allow some of the races and classes in my 4e games. Bottom line, I didn't feal cheated picking it up.

Treebore · Post by **Treebore** » Mon Mar 23, 2009 8:25 am

I haven't bought or read the PHB 2, but I did play an Avenger on WW D&D Day, and it definitely had an interesting mix of powers. 2 of which I thought were even cool.

What bugged me most is this feeling of, "I am playing Mutants and Masterminds." kept creeping through my mind.

4e is a very solid looking and even interesting game to play, but it continues to fail the, "Is it D&D?" check with me. I can definitely play 4E and even have fun, but its no more D&D to me than GURPS, Paladium Fantasy, Rolemaster, or Savage Worlds is. Its just another decent to good game that I am not strongly motivated to play, let alone run as my system of choice.

I did page through someone elses copy of it, and I have to say the presentation and layout as well as art is very well done. I think they have been studying Paizo. Which is a smart thing to do.
_________________
The Ruby Lord, Earl of the Society

Next Con I am attending: http://www.neoncon.com/

My House Rules: http://www.freeyabb.com/phpbb/viewtopic ... llordgames

SoulCatcher78 · Post by **SoulCatcher78** » Mon Mar 23, 2009 10:36 am

I think I'll be holding off on the PHB2 until I can find one at a deep discount. There were only a couple of additions that I was looking forward to (Gnome *agree with your take, much better this time around*, Half-Orc, Bard *finally doesn't suck*, Barbarian, and Druid).

Deva and Goliath feel like filler to me...another example of "we need more races/civilizations" but if the buying public likes them, so be it. The line up of wilderness based classes seems a bit much for me (Druid and Barbarian cover all the bases IMHO).

One thing I haven't seen any mention of is an increased number of rituals. Did they expand on this with the PHB2?

DangerDwarf · Post by **DangerDwarf** » Mon Mar 23, 2009 11:33 am

Doh. Yeah, there is a section on new rituals as well. Not a huge amount, 23 new rituals to be exact.

It also has a little section on"Variant Ritual Books". A flavor text type deal that allows for Ritual books to have other forms than your standard book. Animal Hides, stone tablets, etc.

DangerDwarf · Post by **DangerDwarf** » Mon Mar 23, 2009 11:55 am

Treebore wrote:
4e is a very solid looking and even interesting game to play, but it continues to fail the, "Is it D&D?" check with me. I can definitely play 4E and even have fun, but its no more D&D to me than GURPS, Paladium Fantasy, Rolemaster, or Savage Worlds is.

I lean your way there. 4e has been our second most played game since it's release (C&C is our most played) and while it does kind of have a D&D vibe, when I want D&D I bust out C&C.

It is a game we enjoy though. We haven't played it in a long term campaign yet though, instead using it for one-offs and mini campaigns of 4-6 sessions (which is our normal for games in our non-primary system). I'm tempted to bust out the Scales of War adventure path and give it a go in a long term campaign.

I had halted my WotC 4e purchases but the quality of the PHB2 and Martial power surprised me enough that I placed an order for a couple more of the WotC produced books.

serleran · Post by **serleran** » Mon Mar 23, 2009 12:57 pm

As long as the gnome is presentable, the rest could be useless. I miss a good gnome.
_________________
If it matters, leave a message at the beep.
Serl's Corner

Julian Grimm · Post by **Julian Grimm** » Mon Mar 23, 2009 4:11 pm

So, DD, in your opinion does the multiple PHB route seems like it is going to be a good thing?
_________________
The Lord of Ravens
My blog

gideon_thorne · Post by **gideon_thorne** » Mon Mar 23, 2009 4:14 pm

Julian Grimm wrote:
So, DD, in your opinion does the multiple PHB route seems like it is going to be a good thing?

*grin* Might want to expand that squire.

Are you asking is it going to be a good thing for those running the game or playing the game, or for those selling the books?

The first is open to debate, the second is open to how many are bought.
_________________
"We'll go out through the kitchen!" Tanis Half-Elven

Peter Bradley

moriarty777 · Post by **moriarty777** » Mon Mar 23, 2009 4:29 pm

My problem with the PHB 2 is quite simply this:

WOTC considers this to be a 'CORE' book. The PHB2 in 3.x was not. This also means that the DMG2 and maybe even the MM2 are also going to be considered 'CORE' books. So... four core books required to play and counting... an excellent way to alienate the small percentage who had a couple of the books.

M
_________________
"You face Death itself in the form of... 1d4 Tarrasques!"

Partner to Brave Halfling Publishing
http://www.arcanacreations.com

DangerDwarf · Post by **DangerDwarf** » Mon Mar 23, 2009 4:31 pm

Julian Grimm wrote:
So, DD, in your opinion does the multiple PHB route seems like it is going to be a good thing?

Right now I view it as no different than the "Complete" books of 3e. It adds some options in regards to races and classes to your game that you may or may not use.

It's not a neccessary book but it definitely doesn't hurt the game any and its no more of an evil than the Complete books. Assuming the quality keeps up like it has so far, I'll likely pick up the PHB3 when it eventually roles around.

DangerDwarf · Post by **DangerDwarf** » Mon Mar 23, 2009 4:33 pm

moriarty777 wrote:
My problem with the PHB 2 is quite simply this:

WOTC considers this to be a 'CORE' book. The PHB2 in 3.x was not. This also means that the DMG2 and maybe even the MM2 are also going to be considered 'CORE' books. So... four core books required to play and counting... an excellent way to alienate the small percentage who had a couple of the books.

M

I think that is a bunk argument though. I'll try running a game without it and see if the WotC Storm Troopers show up and break up my game.

Even the 4e DMG states you can run a game without conforming to the CORE assumptions.

gideon_thorne · Post by **gideon_thorne** » Mon Mar 23, 2009 4:38 pm

DangerDwarf wrote:
I think that is a bunk argument though. I'll try running a game without it and see if the WotC Storm Troopers show up and break up my game.

Even the 4e DMG states you can run a game without conforming to the CORE assumptions.

*grin* Really? Try explaining that to the player who brings in his push cart full of books and proudly holds up a tome that has some 'new' thingy in a book the DM doesn't own.

Especially when the DM says "If I own the book, you can play it, if I don't, you cant." Some of the responses I've seen, you'd think you took away their cookie.
_________________
"We'll go out through the kitchen!" Tanis Half-Elven

Peter Bradley

DangerDwarf · Post by **DangerDwarf** » Mon Mar 23, 2009 4:40 pm

Not anything new.

3e and the Complete Everythings started that trend hard core.

But, hell that was going on in 2nd Edition as well.

In fact, that is a by-product of EVERY game that has multiple books of crunch whether it is D&D, Rifts, Shadowrun, etc.

CKDad · Post by **CKDad** » Mon Mar 23, 2009 5:18 pm

gideon_thorne wrote:
*grin* Really? Try explaining that to the player who brings in his push cart full of books and proudly holds up a tome that has some 'new' thingy in a book the DM doesn't own.

Especially when the DM says "If I own the book, you can play it, if I don't, you cant." Some of the responses I've seen, you'd think you took away their cookie.

"There's plenty of room on the bus the Goths left on."
_________________
"I don't wanna be remembered as the guy who died because he underestimated the threat posed by a monkey."

jaguar451 · Post by **jaguar451** » Mon Mar 23, 2009 5:22 pm

Not new, but seems to add an additional argument to the crowd wanting more ("WoTC says it's core"), so might make the discussion more 'interesting'....

DangerDwarf · Post by **DangerDwarf** » Mon Mar 23, 2009 5:25 pm

No different than arguments over house rules in C&C, changing up the "core" rules. It's a player problem, not a system one.

Treebore · Post by **Treebore** » Mon Mar 23, 2009 9:32 pm

DangerDwarf wrote:
Not anything new.

3e and the Complete Everythings started that trend hard core.

But, hell that was going on in 2nd Edition as well.

In fact, that is a by-product of EVERY game that has multiple books of crunch whether it is D&D, Rifts, Shadowrun, etc.

Yes, this has been my experience as well.

So there is nothing in the PH2 that expands on the classes and races in PH1?

Plus I was told conflicting things on the classes like Avenger. Is the Avenger a new class you can play from level 1, or is it more like a Prestige Class that you can pick up at 11th level and change the fundamental direction of your PC?
_________________
The Ruby Lord, Earl of the Society

Next Con I am attending: http://www.neoncon.com/

My House Rules: http://www.freeyabb.com/phpbb/viewtopic ... llordgames

Julian Grimm · Post by **Julian Grimm** » Mon Mar 23, 2009 9:57 pm

DangerDwarf wrote:
Not anything new.

3e and the Complete Everythings started that trend hard core.

But, hell that was going on in 2nd Edition as well.

In fact, that is a by-product of EVERY game that has multiple books of crunch whether it is D&D, Rifts, Shadowrun, etc.

That is one thing that divides me in this hobby. On one hand I like the idea of new classes, races, spells and such. On the other I don't like the idea of a long stream of 'must have' books. Maybe if they were spread out, say one new book a year, I would accept the idea better.

I likes 'teh crunch' just as much as I do the 'fluff' but don't want to be overburdened with books I'll never get around to using.
_________________
The Lord of Ravens
My blog

Lord Dynel · Post by **Lord Dynel** » Mon Mar 23, 2009 10:18 pm

The argument about what is "core" and what is not is a grand one - one I had a few times.

When 3.x first started out, Core was meant to mean what we all knew it to mean - PHB, MM, and DMG (as defined in the front of the PHBs). Then, probably from a marketing standpoint, sometime in early 3.5 the idea shifted to "everything not linked to a specific campaign setting." I've seen and participated in tons of debate on it. Many people think that TSR first used it to mean the latter, when they released the AD&D "Core" rules utilities. Maybe they did. But a lot of people believe it wasn't done for purely marketing reasons until WotC starting using it to mean "non campaign-specific." For a reason I can only speculate to be financially driven - if everything is Core, then a player has argument to be able to use anything they want. When anything is available, the DM better be able to access everything, too, so everyone is forced to buy everything. Why now, after all these years, is Dungeon and Dragon considered "core?" Makes one wonder.
As for the PHB2, I agree - it's just a splatbook with another name.

But to each their own and all that good stuff.
_________________
LD's C&C creations - the witch, a half-ogre, skill and 0-level rules

Troll Lord wrote:
Lord D: you understand where I"m coming from.

DangerDwarf · Post by **DangerDwarf** » Mon Mar 23, 2009 11:36 pm

Treebore wrote:
So there is nothing in the PH2 that expands on the classes and races in PH1?

Plus I was told conflicting things on the classes like Avenger. Is the Avenger a new class you can play from level 1, or is it more like a Prestige Class that you can pick up at 11th level and change the fundamental direction of your PC?

Yes, there are some things that expand upon the PHB. There are racial paragon paths, new rituals, racial backgrounds, epic destinies, etc.

The Avenger and other classes presented in the book are new classes, playable from level 1. They are also presented with their own unique Paragon Paths achievable at level 11.

DangerDwarf · Post by **DangerDwarf** » Mon Mar 23, 2009 11:42 pm

Lord Dynel wrote:
The argument about what is "core" and what is not is a grand one - one I had a few times.

When 3.x first started out, Core was meant to mean what we all knew it to mean - PHB, MM, and DMG (as defined in the front of the PHBs). Then, probably from a marketing standpoint, sometime in early 3.5 the idea shifted to "everything not linked to a specific campaign setting." I've seen and participated in tons of debate on it. Many people think that TSR first used it to mean the latter, when they released the AD&D "Core" rules utilities. Maybe they did. But a lot of people believe it wasn't done for purely marketing reasons until WotC starting using it to mean "non campaign-specific." For a reason I can only speculate to be financially driven - if everything is Core, then a player has argument to be able to use anything they want. When anything is available, the DM better be able to access everything, too, so everyone is forced to buy everything. Why now, after all these years, is Dungeon and Dragon considered "core?" Makes one wonder.
As for the PHB2, I agree - it's just a splatbook with another name.

But to each their own and all that good stuff.

I've never really cared nor understood the whole "Core" debate. As a DM, what is or isn't allowable has always been determined by me and my group. I don't care what books are available.

D&D seems to be more into the whole "core" thing. I've played a lot of RIFTS over the years and that is one of, if not THE, King of Splats. Even so, our groups never had "core" arguments. Just what was allowed and what wasn't. same with other games with splat books.

So I'm not sure why D&D players seem to feed into the whole concept more or why people feel that it is "necessary" to buy the splats. Sure they can add stuff but as a requirement? Nah.

serleran · Post by **serleran** » Mon Mar 23, 2009 11:47 pm

Some games, like RIFTS, as noted, demand the DM go through and decide what will be allowed -- if you simply say "its in the book, it has to be good" then you're in for a world of hurt as characters will be vastly different in power schemes and maybe even too powerful for what you want to do. I mean, Player X might pick a Wolfen Manhuter -- cool idea, and will play well. And then serleran will play a Temporal Raider Necromancer or a Hectanocheire Godling.
_________________
If it matters, leave a message at the beep.
Serl's Corner

DangerDwarf · Post by **DangerDwarf** » Mon Mar 23, 2009 11:52 pm

Yep, and every game should be treated like that. What is "core" to a campaign can only be determined by a group.

Treebore · Post by **Treebore** » Tue Mar 24, 2009 12:16 am

DangerDwarf wrote:
Yep, and every game should be treated like that. What is "core" to a campaign can only be determined by a group.

That is how 3E was meant to be handled, unfortunately a lot of whiny players cried like babies if you were a cruel DM and said no to their favorite splat books.

Fortunately I had no problem kicking such people out of my games, but I was part of two groups that had one or two players like that.
Even so I still had a heck of time remembering all the little rules at higher levels and felt over whelmed, etc...

I am not feeling that with C&C, and they are well into the levels where I had such issues in 3E. IE they are 15th.
_________________
The Ruby Lord, Earl of the Society

Next Con I am attending: http://www.neoncon.com/

My House Rules: http://www.freeyabb.com/phpbb/viewtopic ... llordgames

Lord Dynel · Post by **Lord Dynel** » Tue Mar 24, 2009 10:21 am

Agreed 100% on the Core discussion. I never had a problem calling the "Big 3" Core but yeah, I never ad problems with saying, "so what?" to those who want to use this-or-that with the defense that it's core. One more reason I like C&C - the only "core" book is the PHB!
_________________
LD's C&C creations - the witch, a half-ogre, skill and 0-level rules

Troll Lord wrote:
Lord D: you understand where I"m coming from.