# The Actual Table of Contents for Xanathar's Guide to Everything



## Morrus (Oct 21, 2017)

WotC's Extra Life charity fundraiser reached $40,000 a while ago, and the promised preview for that donation level was the table of contents from _Xanathar's Guide to Everything_. It's been leaked all over the internet since then by D&D Beyond, Reddit, and elsewhere. Tonight, WotC has released to ToC itself. You can see it below.




​

Thread edited and merged from threads by Leatherhead and Pukunui.
[FONT=&amp]*Save*[/FONT][FONT=&amp]*Save*[/FONT]​


----------



## gyor (Oct 21, 2017)

TerraDave said:


> A lot of good stuff there.
> 
> Of course, on the DM side, a lot of stuff is not there, but I like what I see.
> 
> Actually, one of the most useful things will be the appendix of sample names.




 You can look up names from real cultures online for free,  so I can see sample names from none humans being useful,  but the names from real world culture feels like filler and I don't like that, I would preferred that space going to maybe more none racial feats.


----------



## Prakriti (Oct 21, 2017)

This is shaping up to be a very lackluster release. And that low of a page-count makes the $50 price-tag unjustifiable. I'm going to file this one alongside the SCAG as another unfortunate blemish on 5E.


----------



## Waller (Oct 21, 2017)

WotC wants me to pay for 11 pages of names from the real world? Did they just copy and paste Wikipedia or something?

http://www.studentsoftheworld.info/penpals/stats.php3?Pays=JAP

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/u...st-popular-boys-and-girls-names-10459074.html

https://www.babycenter.com/0_most-popular-baby-names-in-spain_10341136.bc


----------



## Erdric Dragin (Oct 21, 2017)

$50 for not even 200 pages? We had $30 books back in 3e with 250+ pages...what gives?


----------



## pukunui (Oct 21, 2017)

Erdric Dragin said:


> $50 for not even 200 pages? We had $30 books back in 3e with 250+ pages...what gives?



Inflation?


----------



## FitzTheRuke (Oct 21, 2017)

Looks great! Lots of interesting stuff there in the DM toolbox. 

It's true that you can look-up/make-up names on your own, but I know a LOT of players that are terrible at it, and this will really help them. Personally, I'm great at making names, but then it's not all about _me_, is it?

After all those subclass videos on D&D Beyond, I'm surprised there's so many subclasses that I didn't realize were going to be in there.  Looks like some interesting ones. 

I wonder if the ranger will include some of the revisions?


----------



## Kobold Stew (Oct 21, 2017)

Woo hoo. I am excited. Pages 77-84 will be the first things I read.

I agree that there is a fair bit of filler -- the appendix on names and the repeats from SCAG seem particularly egregious to me.


----------



## pukunui (Oct 21, 2017)

FitzTheRuke said:


> I wonder if the ranger will include some of the revisions?



It won't. They are still working on it. See here for more: The Future of the Ranger.



Kobold Stew said:


> Woo hoo. I am excited. Pages 77-84 will be the first things I read.



Same. I am more looking forward to the DM content than the player content. Hopefully they will post some previews soon. (They are coming.)



> I agree that there is a fair bit of filler -- the appendix on names and the repeats from SCAG seem particularly egregious to me.



Those are apparently there for the AL folks, with their PHB +1 limits.


----------



## gyor (Oct 21, 2017)

FitzTheRuke said:


> Looks great! Lots of interesting stuff there in the DM toolbox.
> 
> It's true that you can look-up/make-up names on your own, but I know a LOT of players that are terrible at it, and this will really help them. Personally, I'm great at making names, but then it's not all about _me_, is it?
> 
> ...




 Seriously,  Google search elf/dwarf/Indian/Japanese/Chinese/Greek names,  you have tons of names in seconds. You don't have to be good at coming up with names,  you will have hundreds to choose from in seconds.


----------



## Xaelvaen (Oct 21, 2017)

With http://www.fantasynamegenerators.com/ I find the name stuff just a complete waste of a book entirely - glad I only purchased the D&D beyond version for half-ish the price.  I mean, I agree with [MENTION=23484]Kobold Stew[/MENTION] about those pages around waking and sleeping and so forth, been looking for solid clarification there for a while, and the class options of course are stellar.  But not worth more than the 30 bucks at D&D Beyond.


----------



## gyor (Oct 21, 2017)

Prakriti said:


> This is shaping up to be a very lackluster release. And that low of a page-count makes the $50 price-tag unjustifiable. I'm going to file this one alongside the SCAG as another unfortunate blemish on 5E.




 This is why you buy it for a discount on Amazon or other highly discounted price.


----------



## R_Chance (Oct 21, 2017)

pukunui said:


> Inflation?




 I needed a good laugh. Thanks.

It is currently $29.97 on Amazon for those who find the price high.


----------



## dropbear8mybaby (Oct 21, 2017)

Prakriti said:


> This is shaping up to be a very lackluster release. And that low of a page-count makes the $50 price-tag unjustifiable. I'm going to file this one alongside the SCAG as another unfortunate blemish on 5E.



Yeah, the last year or so of UA's, trawling through feedback, testing, revising, surveys, etc. they really should just give it to us for free. Hell, I think I should be _paid_ to buy it!


----------



## Kobold Stew (Oct 21, 2017)

pukunui said:


> Those are apparently there for the AL folks, with their PHB +1 limits.




I understand that, even if it doesn't affect me. Still, it reduces the useful pages of SCAG (for character creation) to a few subclasses (for me, the Arcane domain for Clerics is the only one I have used, and I love it), and the race material --- all of which could easily have fit where they are instead going to give me human names. 

(Also -- calling it now -- there will be problems with the name lists that will upset people. Either there will be more male names than female names, or one of the lists will contain stereotypes or derogatory names. It's a minefield that they didn't need to enter, but have chosen to. I really want to be wrong on this.)


----------



## Remathilis (Oct 21, 2017)

The sense of entitlement is strong with this thread...


----------



## ninjayeti (Oct 21, 2017)

I guess "Xanthar's Guide to Stuff You Could Have Just Googled" didn't test well with the focus groups.


----------



## gyor (Oct 21, 2017)

Remathilis said:


> The sense of entitlement is strong with this thread...




 It's almost like people want reasonable value for the money they will spend on this book,  how dare they! 

 Look most of the book is fine,  although the DM stuff should have gone into a separate book,  and a races section along with some other player stuff  replace it, but at least that is reasonably useful stuff, but the human names section is a waste of space that could have gone to something useful, but didn't.

 People have a right to point this out.

 I mean even fantasy names for human races would have been better, Mulan names, Calashite names, Narfellan names, Chultan names, Turami names, and so on.


----------



## Morrus (Oct 21, 2017)

Remathilis said:


> The sense of entitlement is strong with this thread...




It’s a product, not a cult. People are welcome to offer their opinions of a potential purchase.


----------



## eryndel (Oct 21, 2017)

So folks are feeling ripped off by a guide,  written by the guild master of one of the most pernicious Thieves Guilds in the Sword Coast.  I mean, he's a beholder... he doesn't even have hands!  

I'd much rather trust Volo and that's saying something.

Sent from my SHIELD Tablet K1 using Tapatalk


----------



## Remathilis (Oct 21, 2017)

gyor said:


> I mean even fantasy names for human races would have been better, Mulan names, Calashite names, Narfellan names, Chultan names, Turami names, and so on.




Then people would have complained the names were to Realms-focused and want names for Flan, Suel, Khorvaire, Barovia, Solomnia, Sigil, etc as well. No win situation.


----------



## pukunui (Oct 21, 2017)

gyor said:


> I mean even fantasy names for human races would have been better, Mulan names, Calashite names, Narfellan names, Chultan names, Turami names, and so on.



They've already given us those elsewhere (PHB, SCAG, and ToA for Chultans).


----------



## kenmarable (Oct 21, 2017)

pukunui said:


> Those are apparently there for the AL folks, with their PHB +1 limits.




I keep hearing this, but it doesn’t make any sense. Like the Tortle Package, they can say “SCAG counts as Xanathars for PHB + 1.” Then it has the exact same effect with 1 sentence. *Shrug*

Of course, I already pre-ordered it at DDB, so it’s not like I’m not excited to see it. But I keep hearing everywhere that reprinted stuff is to help with PHB+1 when that doesn’t really make any sense at all. Just leaves me kinda confused. 

Now if it’s just to get new player material condensed, that kinda works except it overlooks EEPC and backgrounds in various adventures and the like.


----------



## pukunui (Oct 21, 2017)

kenmarable said:


> Now if it’s just to get new player material condensed, that kinda works except it overlooks EEPC and backgrounds in various adventures and the like.



Based on the wizard spell list preview, it looks like the spells from the EEPC are getting reprinted in XGE as well (and the deep gnome was reprinted in the SCAG, while the goliath was reprinted in Volo's).


----------



## Prakriti (Oct 21, 2017)

dropbear8mybaby said:


> Yeah, the last year or so of UA's, trawling through feedback, testing, revising, surveys, etc. they really should just give it to us for free. Hell, I think I should be _paid_ to buy it!



I would expect a book as slim as the SCAG to be priced the same as the SCAG (i.e. $40). 

Plus, there's nothing in the Table of Contents that interests me. Player options are a detriment to the game, most of the content is reprinted from other sources, and the only new content appears to be useless filler. No thanks.


----------



## Parmandur (Oct 21, 2017)

kenmarable said:


> I keep hearing this, but it doesn’t make any sense. Like the Tortle Package, they can say “SCAG counts as Xanathars for PHB + 1.” Then it has the exact same effect with 1 sentence. *Shrug*
> 
> Of course, I already pre-ordered it at DDB, so it’s not like I’m not excited to see it. But I keep hearing everywhere that reprinted stuff is to help with PHB+1 when that doesn’t really make any sense at all. Just leaves me kinda confused.
> 
> Now if it’s just to get new player material condensed, that kinda works except it overlooks EEPC and backgrounds in various adventures and the like.



The EEPC is one of the +1 options to choose from, along with the printed books: largely redundant at this point, but that appears to be part of the publishing strategy, to reprint material to keep it AL relevant.


----------



## maceochaid (Oct 21, 2017)

Clearly guys they needed to do the reprints! Can you imagine if the Mastermind had access to Racial Feats! Obviously only the Storm Sorcerer can, nay, MUST have racial feats!


----------



## Parmandur (Oct 21, 2017)

Remathilis said:


> Then people would have complained the names were to Realms-focused and want names for Flan, Suel, Khorvaire, Barovia, Solomnia, Sigil, etc as well. No win situation.



Yeah, despite the Xanathar in the title, this is a setting generic book. It's not like Realms or Greyhawk culture names aren't just Earth culture names with a slight twist, anyways.

I can be pretty terrible at naming, so I appreciate the tables for quick reference: interesting choices for cultures, at any rate.


----------



## Remathilis (Oct 21, 2017)

Parmandur said:


> Yeah, despite the Xanathar in the title, this is a setting generic book. It's not like Realms or Greyhawk culture names aren't just Earth culture names with a slight twist, anyways.
> 
> I can be pretty terrible at naming, so I appreciate the tables for quick reference: interesting choices for cultures, at any rate.




I honestly wouldn't mind: "Celtic names can be used to represent people of Tethryan or Ffolk stock (Faerun), Eldeen Reaches (Eberron), ..." to kinda show what RL names would link up with different regions in D&D settings.


----------



## guachi (Oct 21, 2017)

It looks good. First thing I'm going to look at is page 78 and Tying Knots. It has that bit of random importance that infested the 1e DMG. I read it and think, "Why did Gygax think this was important enough to put in a book?"

Then I saw all the names at the back. I'm an Arabic linguist. I'm sure the butchering of Arabic names will make me cry. Of course, the names already get butchered in the attempted transliteration into the Roman alphabet every day here on Earth. I wonder if they'll eliminate the overtly religious names referencing Allah that won't really make sense in a fantasy context.

If I had known they were adding names I could have given them hundreds of Arabic names along with rough meanings of the names.


----------



## MechaPilot (Oct 21, 2017)

I'm glad the price went down.  The book just doesn't seem like a $50 value.

I don't need the real world names.  It's tremendously easy to google those.  I frequently use Behind the Name for names from other real world cultures.

As for the SCAG reprints, I never bought the SCAG, and I don't intend to unless I can maybe get it from a bargain bin for $10 or less.  So they don't particularly bother me.  That said, I can see how people who already paid for that material in the SCAG would be very irritated at having to buy it a second time just to get the other stuff in the new book.  I think the reprints are a bad business idea; to me, it only encourages piracy.  And yes, I know about the AL's PHB+1 limit, but it's incredibly easy to say SCAG and the Guide are considered one book as a special rule for AL purposes (this would be much easier to implement and enforce than their special subclasses or extra gear for charitable donations).


----------



## mach1.9pants (Oct 21, 2017)

I'm interested int he guidelines/rules for 'learning wildshapes'. An area that has caused a bit of discussion on here.


----------



## MechaPilot (Oct 21, 2017)

Prakriti said:


> Player options are a detriment to the game . . . .




There is no limit to how vehemently I disagree with that statement.


----------



## Connorsrpg (Oct 21, 2017)

Wow. I read the table of contents and was quite interested in this. Looks good to me, but I didn't have a prob with SCAG either (even though I am not keen on the FR). Wizards are showing us what is in these books first. People expected SCAG to be something it was not. Is that the case here? So much negativity. Simple - don't buy it.

Anyway, looks like there will be some interesting stuff in there. Of course I will only use a tiny portion of it, but that's been the case for most expansion books for all editions, so...


----------



## gyor (Oct 21, 2017)

Connorsrpg said:


> Wow. I read the table of contents and was quite interested in this. Looks good to me, but I didn't have a prob with SCAG either (even though I am not keen on the FR). Wizards are showing us what is in these books first. People expected SCAG to be something it was not. Is that the case here? So much negativity. Simple - don't buy it.
> 
> Anyway, looks like there will be some interesting stuff in there. Of course I will only use a tiny portion of it, but that's been the case for most expansion books for all editions, so...




 There is a lot of cool stuff in it,  it's find to want the stuff we like subclasses,  and critize the parts that are a waste of space,  the feedback helps WotC make better products. I still plan on buying it,  but it could be a lot better.


----------



## pukunui (Oct 21, 2017)

Sqn Cdr Flashheart said:


> I'm interested int he guidelines/rules for 'learning wildshapes'. An area that has caused a bit of discussion on here.



Those'll be the same ones that were previewed in the druid UA article from earlier this year.


----------



## mach1.9pants (Oct 21, 2017)

pukunui said:


> Those'll be the same ones that were previewed in the druid UA article from earlier this year.




Ah must've missed/forgotten about that one!


----------



## UngeheuerLich (Oct 21, 2017)

I find 50$ quite a lot. I do like the content however. Even the appendix with names. I am sure they would have put more subclasses in. Bur I guess the other subclasses and stuff did not playtest well enough. And they are true to their line: better less content than bad content. That is good in my opinion.
I bought it on dnd beyond for 25 dollars. That seems ok to me.


----------



## JackOfAllTirades (Oct 21, 2017)

I feel bad for anyone who pays full price for this book. It'll be marked down at B&N. And if you have a members' card there, you get something like 15% (or is it 20%?) off hardcovers. That stacks with the 20% off coupons they e-mail me on a regular basis.

I figure I'll drive about 15 miles and pay half price. Totally worth it.

What's the release date again?

Never, ever pay full price for your RPGs, kids.


----------



## WayOfTheFourElements (Oct 21, 2017)

Remathilis said:


> The sense of entitlement is strong with this thread...




Exactly. If you don't like it; don't buy it. If the price tag isn't worth it; don't buy it. Simple enough.


----------



## Dualazi (Oct 21, 2017)

pukunui said:


> Those are apparently there for the AL folks, with their PHB +1 limits.




Doesn’t really change the fact that it means the book holds less content/value for people that already have those options available in non AL games. I find this especially irritating because their measured release schedule really doesn’t need to be weighed down with filler and reprints.



Remathilis said:


> The sense of entitlement is strong with this thread...




No it isn’t, the complaints raised are entirely valid. The first major character options package released for 5e and we already see it has 11 pages of totally meaningless filler, coupled with several reprints of existing options. It’s not ‘entitlement’ to criticize the shortcomings of a product or developer, and 11 pages of names is pretty indefensible.

As an aside, I’m getting really tired of seeing people try and dismiss complaints as entitlement, essentially implying that you should just be happy with whatever and never push back against poor quality. No one is asking for the book for free, but pointing out that a lot of redundant or useless content might make it a harder sell at the usual 50$ price is a valid issue for potential consumers to be made aware of.

For my part, I’ll be waiting for a significant discount to crop up before I purchase this, I think. The massive number of reprints (classes, races, spells) and the jaw-dropping 17 pages total of names makes me really annoyed. Realistically I’d ballpark probably 30 odd pages of content that doesn’t need to be present, and that’s a ton of real estate. They could have put in the revised ranger and artificer easily within that space, if not more, and given how long releases take in 5e it seems doubly egregious to be hit with so much filler.


----------



## WayOfTheFourElements (Oct 21, 2017)

Dualazi said:


> No it isn’t, the complaints raised are entirely valid. The first major character options package released for 5e and we already see it has 11 pages of totally meaningless filler, coupled with several reprints of existing options. It’s not ‘entitlement’ to criticize the shortcomings of a product or developer, and 11 pages of names is pretty indefensible.




Vote with your pocketbook. It's the only thing Hasbro will listen to. Complaining on the internet does not solve problems in an effective manner. (See my purposeless, overblown tirades against wilderness rogues and thieves cant for details.)


----------



## TrippyHippy (Oct 21, 2017)

I'm looking forward to it. I'm glad that some of the sub-classes from other sources (like Sword Coast) are in there.


----------



## Gladius Legis (Oct 21, 2017)

17 pages of names. I guarantee that NOBODY will use that. What a waste of space.


----------



## Gladius Legis (Oct 21, 2017)

dropbear8mybaby said:


> Yeah, the last year or so of UA's, trawling through feedback, testing, revising, surveys, etc. they really should just give it to us for free. Hell, I think I should be _paid_ to buy it!



Indeed, I *should* be paid to buy what amounts to Xanathar's Guide to Names.


----------



## techno (Oct 21, 2017)

Disappointed by all the filler. Wish they included weapon feats instead. Those were cool. A bunch of names I can Google is not.


----------



## MechaPilot (Oct 21, 2017)

WayOfTheFourElements said:


> Vote with your pocketbook. It's the only thing Hasbro will listen to. Complaining on the internet does not solve problems in an effective manner. (See my purposeless, overblown tirades against wilderness rogues and thieves cant for details.)




Can't people both vote with their purse and textually express their displeasure on a forum?  Aren't forums explicitly for airing one's opinions?


----------



## IchneumonWasp (Oct 21, 2017)

I'm going to buy this book for the name tables alone. Yes, I am.


----------



## Prakriti (Oct 21, 2017)

WayOfTheFourElements said:


> Vote with your pocketbook. It's the only thing Hasbro will listen to. Complaining on the internet does not solve problems in an effective manner. (See my purposeless, overblown tirades against wilderness rogues and thieves cant for details.)



By that logic, no one should express an opinion either way -- criticism or excitement -- because Hasbro isn't reading what we write. We should all just silently "vote with our pocketbooks" and keep our opinions to ourselves. That wouldn't make for a very interesting forum, though, would it? 



JackOfAllTirades said:


> I feel bad for anyone who pays full price for this book. It'll be marked down at B&N. And if you have a members' card there, you get something like 15% (or is it 20%?) off hardcovers. That stacks with the 20% off coupons they e-mail me on a regular basis.



You are paying more for a $50 book even with discounts, because discounts are based on the MSRP. If you have a 35% discount, then a $50 book costs $32.50, while a $40 book costs $26. That's a significant difference.


----------



## Parmandur (Oct 21, 2017)

Gladius Legis said:


> 17 pages of names. I guarantee that NOBODY will use that. What a waste of space.



Factually incorrect: I love name tables, extremely useful.


----------



## Gladius Legis (Oct 21, 2017)

Parmandur said:


> Factually incorrect: I love name tables, extremely useful.




You can love name tables all you want, but they are factually useless.


----------



## WayOfTheFourElements (Oct 21, 2017)

Prakriti said:


> By that logic, no one should express an opinion either way -- criticism or excitement -- because Hasbro isn't reading what we write. We should all just silently "vote with our pocketbooks" and keep our opinions to ourselves. That wouldn't make for a very interesting forum, though, would it?




Forums are extremely useful for clarifying issues, solving problems, and sharing content. This, however, is not an issue that will be solved by a forum discussion.


----------



## IchneumonWasp (Oct 21, 2017)

Gladius Legis said:


> You can love name tables all you want, but they are factually useless.




You must have never played with a group of characters with long full of unpronouncable elvish sounding names. As a DM I have started naming my NPCs with 'normal' names (like John, William etc.), because players will never remember the Elf named X. These tables will in a sense form the backbone for my world-building.


----------



## Gladius Legis (Oct 21, 2017)

IchneumonWasp said:


> You must have never played with a group of characters with long full of unpronouncable elvish sounding names. As a DM I have started naming my NPCs with 'normal' names (like John, William etc.), because players will never remember the Elf named X. These tables will in a sense form the backbone for my world-building.




Tables you could've compiled with Google. Bottom line, this is 17 pages that could've been spent on more feats, subclasses, spells, alternate class options, etc., etc. You know, stuff that (a) players will actually USE, and (b) didn't already exist somewhere else in some form for free.


----------



## Greg K (Oct 21, 2017)

IchneumonWasp said:


> You must have never played with a group of characters with long full of unpronouncable elvish sounding names. As a DM I have started naming my NPCs with 'normal' names (like John, William etc.), because players will never remember the Elf named X. These tables will in a sense form the backbone for my world-building.





I use name tables, but, if one is going to pay for them, there are cheaper options (e.g., Lee's Lists).


----------



## dropbear8mybaby (Oct 21, 2017)

Gladius Legis said:


> You can love name tables all you want, but they are factually useless.



Umm, if someone uses it, then it's _factually_ useful.


----------



## WayOfTheFourElements (Oct 21, 2017)

dropbear8mybaby said:


> Umm, if someone uses it, then it's _factually_ useful.




For those of use who don't use electronics at the gaming table, it's quite useful.


----------



## Greg K (Oct 21, 2017)

Prakriti said:


> I would expect a book as slim as the SCAG to be priced the same as the SCAG (i.e. $40).
> 
> Plus, there's nothing in the Table of Contents that interests me. Player options are a detriment to the game, most of the content is reprinted from other sources, and the only new content appears to be useless filler. No thanks.




While there is very little, if anything in the table of contents that interests me or would see use in a game that I run, I disagree that player options are necessarily, detrimental.


----------



## Panda-s1 (Oct 21, 2017)

gyor said:


> You can look up names from real cultures online for free,  so I can see sample names from none humans being useful,  but the names from real world culture feels like filler and I don't like that, I would preferred that space going to maybe more none racial feats.



Y'know a list of human names is one of those cases where I trust a book over the internet. The cynical outcome would be they just copy and pasted some names from the internet, but I'd like to believe they did some actual research into naming conventions around the world. Also they'd presumably include lists of family names, which aren't as easy to find on the internet.

Also I'd rather have the filler be something marginally useful than functionally bad. They might have had 11 pages to spare and decided on something everyone could use than pushing some undercooked feats out the door.


----------



## John R Davis (Oct 21, 2017)

The name list is useful if it wards away people using smart phones etc at the table.
I will buy it for the class options


----------



## Omega9999 (Oct 21, 2017)

I would have liked more than the 17 pages of names a full reprint of the character options in the SCAG, since I do not own a copy of it. Most of the options are generic anyway. I'm pretty disappointed.


----------



## Paraxis (Oct 21, 2017)

Is there a good summary of all the preview videos someplace just the facts we know about the different options, I can't stand watching these guys take 10 minutes to tell me the sentence that sort of matters, and I just find watching videos in general a horrible way to release information.


----------



## Morrus (Oct 21, 2017)

WayOfTheFourElements said:


> Vote with your pocketbook. It's the only thing Hasbro will listen to. Complaining on the internet does not solve problems in an effective manner. (See my purposeless, overblown tirades against wilderness rogues and thieves cant for details.)




It’s called conversation. People can have conversations with each other about things, including conversations about products they may or may not be buying. They can *also* simultaneously choose or not choose to buy it. It’s not a binary state where they can only do one thing.

This is not entitlement. This is normal social interaction.


----------



## Li Shenron (Oct 21, 2017)

Sqn Cdr Flashheart said:


> I'm interested int he guidelines/rules for 'learning wildshapes'. An area that has caused a bit of discussion on here.




They were previewed in UA.


----------



## Enevhar Aldarion (Oct 21, 2017)

The book looks good to me and I will be buying it. But I will buy it from Amazon, like I have bought all of my 5E books, as well as all other recent gaming book purchases. Paying the full retail for gaming books is simply beyond my budget and is something I would do only if no one was offering any kind of discount or sale price at all.


----------



## Dualazi (Oct 21, 2017)

Panda-s1 said:


> Y'know a list of human names is one of those cases where I trust a book over the internet. The cynical outcome would be they just copy and pasted some names from the internet, but I'd like to believe they did some actual research into naming conventions around the world. Also they'd presumably include lists of family names, which aren't as easy to find on the internet.
> 
> Also I'd rather have the filler be something marginally useful than functionally bad. They might have had 11 pages to spare and decided on something everyone could use than pushing some undercooked feats out the door.




Why would internet resources become more suspect on that issue? There are a multitude of sites that cater to names, I find it doubtful that all are malicious or misinformed. Even if you played at a table with no electronics whatsoever (which already makes you a minority of players I would guess) you could still print out a short list ahead of time. There's no good reason for it to be in the book, much less 17 pages of it. Seriously, to look at that number from another perspective, essentially 9% of Xanathar's is devoted to names alone. Even if it was undercooked content, I would take an expanded exploration section, alternate rules for skill use, or any number of other related options that might actually take work for me to make on my own. I don't need Wizards' help using google, thanks.


----------



## Ath-kethin (Oct 21, 2017)

Enevhar Aldarion said:


> The book looks good to me and I will be buying it. But I will buy it from Amazon, like I have bought all of my 5E books, as well as all other recent gaming book purchases. Paying the full retail for gaming books is simply beyond my budget and is something I would do only if no one was offering any kind of discount or sale price at all.




I am pretty disappointed in what I see for this book so far. While I don't have a real problem with more player options I won't allow at my table, I really wish the DM section was heartier. I'm on the "17 pages of stuff you can find in seconds on the internet is an even bigger waste of space than the SCAG reprints" bandwagon as well.

But I will buy the hardcover at my local comic/game store. I am fortunate that I can do so and not starve as a result, but more importantly to my mind is the support of my local shop. I have a four year old, and part of our weekly routine is stopping by to see if his new My Little Pony comic is in, watching the slightly older kids play D&D, checking out the miniatures, etc. 

I want that shop to be here for him (and for the slightly older kids playing D&D and everyone else) for as long as possible, and I can't push for that by buying stuff off Amazon.

I am not passing judgement here; I bought almost all of my 3.5 books from dealers on EBay back in the day because they were so much cheaper. I definitely understand where you are coming from. But it's worth $50 or $100 a year to me to help make sure my store stays around.


----------



## gyor (Oct 21, 2017)

Ath-kethin said:


> I am pretty disappointed in what I see for this book so far. While I don't have a real problem with more player options I won't allow at my table, I really wish the DM section was heartier. I'm on the "17 pages of stuff you can find in seconds on the internet is an even bigger waste of space than the SCAG reprints" bandwagon as well.
> 
> But I will buy the hardcover at my local comic/game store. I am fortunate that I can do so and not starve as a result, but more importantly to my mind is the support of my local shop. I have a four year old, and part of our weekly routine is stopping by to see if his new My Little Pony comic is in, watching the slightly older kids play D&D, checking out the miniatures, etc.
> 
> ...




 The DM section really should have been a separate book,  but they don't have the staff for that.


----------



## dave2008 (Oct 21, 2017)

Ath-kethin said:


> I am pretty disappointed in what I see for this book so far. While I don't have a real problem with more player options I won't allow at my table, I really wish the DM section was heartier. I'm on the "17 pages of stuff you can find in seconds on the internet is an even bigger waste of space than the SCAG reprints" bandwagon as well.
> 
> But I will buy the hardcover at my local comic/game store. I am fortunate that I can do so and not starve as a result, but more importantly to my mind is the support of my local shop. I have a four year old, and part of our weekly routine is stopping by to see if his new My Little Pony comic is in, watching the slightly older kids play D&D, checking out the miniatures, etc.
> 
> ...




You have summed up my thoughts and feelings pretty well.  I want to support my local shop, so I will probably by a copy, but I don't see a lot here that I want.  I was hoping for more DM content, or a least more diversity of content.  77 pages of DM content I would have thought would be adequate, but it is just not a lot of subjects I am interested in.  I was looking forward to more rule options / variants.  From the TOC this looks more like rule clarifications than truly new content.


----------



## dave2008 (Oct 21, 2017)

gyor said:


> The DM section really should have been a separate book,  but they don't have the staff for that.




I don't think it is a staff issue, it is their marketing philosophy.  VoGtM combined PC and DM content as well.  So did SCAG.  I don't think they want to sell discrete PC and DM products.  They believe, and I feel like they have actually said this as well, they can sell more product with a combined approach.


----------



## gyor (Oct 21, 2017)

dave2008 said:


> I don't think it is a staff issue, it is their marketing philosophy.  VoGtM combined PC and DM content as well.  So did SCAG.  I don't think they want to sell discrete PC and DM products.  They believe, and I feel like they have actually said this as well, they can sell more product with a combined approach.




 Don't kind yourself it's not that they don't want too,  it's that they can't, that's just the excuse they put out,  when the reality is that to put out a pure players option book would mean no DM book at all that year,  because they can't do more then 1 none AP book a year.


----------



## dropbear8mybaby (Oct 21, 2017)

Combining DM and player content is a fantastic idea. I don't know why everyone is complaining about that. The burden of buying books is almost always on the DM. Even if it's a player-centric book, the DM needs access to a copy in order to know what's in it, which usually means buying a copy. Having players pitch in to share the expense helps a lot. That, and all DM's are players, and more players should be DM's.


----------



## JeffB (Oct 21, 2017)

I was wondering when they would start talking about the DM side of the book as the player side has zero interest for me. Now I can see why they haven't bothered. That is a snoozefest of DM "tools".

I'll stick with TOA for best DM product for 2017.


----------



## DEFCON 1 (Oct 21, 2017)

I find it ironic that some people find paying $50 once a year for mechanical options is a hardship when 10 years ago they would be paying $35 every month for mechanical options... in both cases having material they'd probably only use 15% of.  Especially now that we've had three years of incessant complaints about WotC not releasing new game mechanic material and cries of "I want to give WotC my money but they won't take it!"  Three years of complaints for more character options, and now that they can have them, more complaints of "I'm not going to spend my money on them."

Now admittedly, the people in this thread who are saying they aren't going to spend the $50 are most likely _not_ the same people who've been shouting this entire time "Where are my character options!"... but I do find it amusing how quickly the narrative changes nonetheless.  But on the bright side for everyone who doesn't want to buy the book... you probably can all use the UA articles themselves for your own home games as needed because the mechanics have all seemed relatively reasonable (with maybe an adjustment made only here or there in specific cases.)

Me personally?  I'm going to buy the book because I had the foresight to save the $4 each month for the past year so that I'd have the money available to me.  It was hard... I mean I usually had to just buy the Medium coffee at Dunkin' Donuts every day rather than the Large... but I think I'm going to be good.    And as far a worth is concerned... I've blown money on much more useless products than this (the 4E Eberron books when I already had the 3.5 setting book), so I'm willing to suck it up just to have the rules in one easily-accessible place.


----------



## Morrus (Oct 21, 2017)

DEFCON 1 said:


> Especially now that we've had three years of incessant complaints about WotC not releasing new game mechanic material and cries of "I want to give WotC my money but they won't take it!"  Three years of complaints for more character options, and now that they can have them, more complaints of "I'm not going to spend my money on them."
> 
> Now admittedly, the people in this thread who are saying they aren't going to spend the $50 are most likely _not_ the same people who've been shouting this entire time "Where are my character options!"... but I do find it amusing how quickly the narrative changes nonetheless.




That’s what happens when you talk to different people. They say different things. It’s quite common.


----------



## dropbear8mybaby (Oct 21, 2017)

Morrus said:


> That’s what happens when you talk to different people. They say different things. It’s quite common.




Maybe in your head. In mine, everyone agrees with all the intelligent, insightful, witty and creative things I say.


----------



## Remathilis (Oct 21, 2017)

Dualazi said:


> As an aside, I’m getting really tired of seeing people try and dismiss complaints as entitlement, essentially implying that you should just be happy with whatever and never push back against poor quality*. No one is asking for the book for free*, but pointing out that a lot of redundant or useless content might make it a harder sell at the usual 50$ price is a valid issue for potential consumers to be made aware of.




try again: 



dropbear8mybaby said:


> Yeah, the last year or so of UA's, trawling through feedback, testing, revising, surveys, etc. they really should just give it to us for free. Hell, I think I should be _paid_ to buy it!


----------



## dave2008 (Oct 21, 2017)

gyor said:


> Don't *kind* yourself it's not that they don't want too,  it's that they can't, that's just the excuse they put out,  when the reality is that to put out a pure players option book would mean no DM book at all that year,  because they can't do more then 1 none AP book a year.




I don't know - I always try to kind myself 

That could be, but that is just speculation.  Regardless it is really the same point - they are doing what they think is most profitable (as any business typical does).  Your example is low overhead is more profitable so less staff.  My example is market research says two in one is more profitable.

I know from previous market research (before 5e) that DMs buy the more product (by a large margin).  So it makes sense (staff or not) to bundle PC content with DM content.  I know this is how it works in my group as well.  There is no extra PC content unless I make it or buy it, so it is nice to get some DM content too.


----------



## Remathilis (Oct 21, 2017)

Gladius Legis said:


> You can love name tables all you want, but they are factually useless.




Factually incorrect: If I use one name off that list, than it has been used and cannot be defined as useless.


----------



## IgnatiusJ.Reilly (Oct 21, 2017)

Seventeen pages of character names?


----------



## Gladius Legis (Oct 21, 2017)

Remathilis said:


> Factually incorrect: If I use one name off that list, than it has been used and cannot be defined as useless.




And if that name could be found elsewhere with a simple Google search, then the table did not need to exist. Hence, again, factually useless.


----------



## Remathilis (Oct 21, 2017)

Gladius Legis said:


> And if that name could be found elsewhere with a simple Google search, then the table did not need to exist. Hence, again, factually useless.



And if I found the list of names in a book, then the Google search is factually useless.


----------



## hbarsquared (Oct 21, 2017)

I'm pretty sure this factually useless argument is factually useless.


----------



## gyor (Oct 21, 2017)

With all the different stuff in the book,  I bet WotC didn't expect the names appendix to be the big source of contraversy! 

 Anyways,  what is done is done,  moving on. 

  Did anyone else notice the serving a Pantheon,  Philosophy,  or Force side bar? It was the blank side bar in the Forge Cleric section previewed. 

 So do you think it's going to be rules for playing clerics that choose Pantheons, Philosophies,  and Forces,  or maybe something for all Divine connected classes?


----------



## Parmandur (Oct 21, 2017)

gyor said:


> The DM section really should have been a separate book,  but they don't have the staff for that.



Why would they make it a separate book? DM/player material being mixed is a commercial strategy, not a staffing issue.


----------



## Remathilis (Oct 21, 2017)

gyor said:


> With all the different stuff in the book,  I bet WotC didn't expect the names appendix to be the big source of contraversy!
> 
> Anyways,  what is done is done,  moving on.
> 
> ...




Maybe [MENTION=26355]yarael[/MENTION] 's prayers (to a non-descript philosophy or Force) have been heard and answered?


----------



## Parmandur (Oct 21, 2017)

gyor said:


> With all the different stuff in the book,  I bet WotC didn't expect the names appendix to be the big source of contraversy!
> 
> Anyways,  what is done is done,  moving on.
> 
> ...



It looks like every class gets a section talking about their subclass types in general terms: extra role-playing/world building advice, I wager.


----------



## Parmandur (Oct 21, 2017)

Remathilis said:


> I honestly wouldn't mind: "Celtic names can be used to represent people of Tethryan or Ffolk stock (Faerun), Eldeen Reaches (Eberron), ..." to kinda show what RL names would link up with different regions in D&D settings.



Wouldn't be surprised if they threw something like that in.


----------



## Parmandur (Oct 21, 2017)

Gladius Legis said:


> And if that name could be found elsewhere with a simple Google search, then the table did not need to exist. Hence, again, factually useless.



Compiling the list into a convenient, printed format with random tables I can physically roll is a useful service to me. I'm getting the book for class options, spells and wandering monster tables: the rest is gravy.

Now, the name tables might not be useful for * you* and your table, but that does not make them useless in themselves. Feats aren't useful for me and my table, but that doesn't make them useless in general.

In terms of cost: WotC spent the last year honing and balancing the included options. The worker is worth his wages, y'all.


----------



## Parmandur (Oct 21, 2017)

IgnatiusJ.Reilly said:


> Seventeen pages of character names?



Personally, I'd like more, but space is as it is.


----------



## gyor (Oct 21, 2017)

Parmandur said:


> Personally, I'd like more, but space is as it is.




 WTF, are you for real.


----------



## gyor (Oct 21, 2017)

Parmandur said:


> It looks like every class gets a section talking about their subclass types in general terms: extra role-playing/world building advice, I wager.




 This is separate from the page or two discussing the class in general,  it's actually mixed into the Forge Cleric Domain,  but it's a side bar so it could apply to more then the cleric. 

 Also looking at the page count and accounting for how much space the subclasses take up,  I see a lot of art in this book. I wonder if they plan to bring back iconics. (Major novel characters like Farideh and Mehan took in that role in the PHB for the races at least).


----------



## Parmandur (Oct 21, 2017)

gyor said:


> WTF, are you for real.



I am not kidding: I love random name tables, and having them easily at hand.

Considering that they did ask us product questions in surveys like "what part of the DM screen do you use?", it would not surprise me if random name tables beat out skill feats in popularity.


----------



## Parmandur (Oct 21, 2017)

gyor said:


> This is separate from the page or two discussing the class in general,  it's actually mixed into the Forge Cleric Domain,  but it's a side bar so it could apply to more then the cleric.
> 
> Also looking at the page count and accounting for how much space the subclasses take up,  I see a lot of art in this book. I wonder if they plan to bring back iconics. (Major novel characters like Farideh and Mehan took in that role in the PHB for the races at least).



There is a blanked out purple sidebar on the first page of the Forge preview: that's probably the force/pantheon sidebar.


----------



## gyor (Oct 21, 2017)

Purple?  It's yellow and kind of looks like a posted note.


----------



## Parmandur (Oct 21, 2017)

gyor said:


> Purple?  It's yellow and kind of looks like a posted note.



So it is: I had remembered it as a purple sidebar without text.

I wager that it is a repeat of the paragraph on the topic from the DMG.


----------



## Azzy (Oct 21, 2017)

Parmandur said:


> So it is: I had remembered it as a purple sidebar without text.




It's interesting that you remembered it as its inverse color.


----------



## TwoSix (Oct 21, 2017)

gyor said:


> With all the different stuff in the book,  I bet WotC didn't expect the names appendix to be the big source of contraversy!




At $50 MSRP for a 192 page book, I'm going to begrudge them font size, let alone 17 pages of formatted Google results.


----------



## Parmandur (Oct 21, 2017)

Azzy said:


> It's interesting that you remembered it as its inverse color.



The mind is a funny thing: often, their little sidebars are either purple or yellow.


----------



## Parmandur (Oct 21, 2017)

TwoSix said:


> At $50 MSRP for a 192 page book, I'm going to begrudge them font size, let alone 17 pages of formatted Google results.



It's only $50 if you support your FLGS: because I'm awful, I'm getting it under $30. It's reasonable.


----------



## Prakriti (Oct 21, 2017)

Remathilis said:


> try again:



dropbear was being sarcastic.



DEFCON 1 said:


> I find it ironic that some people find paying $50 once a year for mechanical options is a hardship when 10 years ago they would be paying $35 every month for mechanical options...



Unlikely. Bloat was one of the reasons why I didn't play 3E. Never bought a single book, never played a single game, and got right out of the hobby after 2E. 5E's lack of bloat is one of the reasons why I came back. Now bloat is slowly pushing me away again, and I can guarantee you that it's pushing others away as well. With each new release of player options, the game's barrier to entry becomes more and more expensive. 

That isn't to say that releasing _Xanathar's Guide_ is necessarily a bad business move. Wizards has enough market data to make a well-informed decision. And they've obviously determined that this book will bring in more players than it will turn away. That's fine. But to pretend that it _won't_ turn players away doesn't help anything. Nor does telling people "It's just one book! That's not bloat!", so please, spare me. The EEPC was "just one book," _Volo's Guide_ was "just one book," the SCAG was "just one book," and now _Xanathar's Guide_ is "just one book." Eventually the camel's back will break, and people will be begging for a 6th Edition just to clear the slate.

Also, no one has really mentioned it yet, but this isn't the mechanical expansion we were promised. Almost nothing here expands the mechanical structure of the game. It's just new player options and refinement to old systems (downtime and crafting). A real mechanical expansion would add new systems to the game: psionics, strongholds, kingdom management, plane-hopping, epic levels, epic destinies, followers, henchmen, etc. In short, _Xanathar's Guide_ could have been much, much cooler than it appears to be.


----------



## Gladius Legis (Oct 21, 2017)

Remathilis said:


> And if I found the list of names in a book, then the Google search is factually useless.




You already have a computer or smartphone (hence you being able to post that), so you'd rather pay $50 dollars for a book of names instead of conducting a Google search for no extra cost?

OK, whatever.


----------



## EthanSental (Oct 21, 2017)

Was there this loud of a public outcry (maybe just a vocal minority) when Troll Lord Games published their 200+ book of names - Gygax' extraordinary book of names in 2004? Or since Gary was involved it got a pass?

and Xanathars is more than a book of names for $50...jeez


----------



## Yaarel (Oct 21, 2017)

I just saw this now in the Xanthars Guide table of contents.

"Sidebar: Serving a Pantheon, Philosophy, or Force ..."



I am grateful for this. The need for religious choice in the default setting and in player options, is an important issue for me and other D&D gamers. I am glad to see this book spell out the other religious possibilities explicitly. For me, it is strongly motivated by the ability to pick choices that I find interesting and can identify with. At the same time, I appreciate the diversity that arises as different players explore different options. I am glad to see D&D 5e officially support religious diversity − and different kinds of religiosity.

I hope to see, the 5e SRD Cleric update to include this sidebar. And the 5e Players Handbook too as part of the next errata update.

This here expansion of religiosity, in Xanthars Guide, means alot to me. I am breathing a sigh of relief. − Heh, relief from a breath that I have been holding for years now, since 5e first appeared.

To the 5e designers. Thank you for this.


----------



## Parmandur (Oct 21, 2017)

Gladius Legis said:


> You already have a computer or smartphone (hence you being able to post that), so you'd rather pay $50 dollars for a book of names instead of conducting a Google search for no extra cost?
> 
> OK, whatever.



Nah, but I'd pay >$30 for a book of tested class options, random monster tables, spells and odds and ends that happen to include some nice random name tables certainly.


----------



## Gladius Legis (Oct 21, 2017)

Parmandur said:


> Feats aren't useful for me and my table, but that doesn't make them useless in general.




Feats are a direct mechanical benefit to your character. They are useful by definition.

Names are ... of no benefit whatsoever. Hence, useless.


----------



## Gladius Legis (Oct 21, 2017)

EthanSental said:


> and Xanathars is more than a book of names for $50...jeez




Not much more.


----------



## Parmandur (Oct 21, 2017)

Prakriti said:


> dropbear was being sarcastic.
> 
> 
> Unlikely. Bloat was one of the reasons why I didn't play 3E. Never bought a single book, never played a single game, and got right out of the hobby after 2E. 5E's lack of bloat is one of the reasons why I came back. Now bloat is slowly pushing me away again, and I can guarantee you that it's pushing others away as well. With each new release of player options, the game's barrier to entry becomes more and more expensive.
> ...



This is the mechanical expansion they have been testing, though: most of this material got floated about in the past year, though I want the things you mentioned as well, though I appreciate that they are taking a slow burn with Psionics in particular.

I never bought anything past the PHB for 3E, myself, but the material they are releasing really isn't bloat: they released more material, without extensive testing, in the first year of 3E than in all of 5E so far.


----------



## Remathilis (Oct 21, 2017)

Gladius Legis said:


> Not much more.



Just the other 175 pages of rules.


----------



## EthanSental (Oct 21, 2017)

Gladius Legis said:


> Not much more.




ill have to respectfully disagree, unless the rest of the pages don't hold enough valve to cover for the 11 pages of names.  To me they do.


----------



## Gladius Legis (Oct 21, 2017)

Remathilis said:


> Just the other 175 pages of rules.




Which for $50 MSRP is entirely inadequate.

17 pages out of 192 is names. That's almost 10% of a $50 book. That's unacceptable to any consumer who understands the value of a dollar.


----------



## Demetrios1453 (Oct 21, 2017)

Remathilis said:


> Maybe [MENTION=26355]yarael[/MENTION] 's prayers (to a non-descript philosophy or Force) have been heard and answered?




I was thinking the exact same thing myself when I saw that. I'm pretty sure that is what that is going cover, and it's about time, as its been part of the game since 2e at least (presumably 1e, but I can't definitively remember any text on it since its been so long since I read the books).


----------



## Winterthorn (Oct 21, 2017)

I was initially disappointed by those 11 pages of human names.  I agree that other material could be more useful to more people, but maybe WotC isn't ready to offer more, who knows?

I am wondering if the human names are modern, or perhaps more interesting medieval/Renaissance names or names and naming conventions of the past?  So I am curious if the presentation of the material was cleverly done?  Maybe there is advice on how to use the names from non-Western cultures?


----------



## Demetrios1453 (Oct 21, 2017)

gyor said:


> WTF, are you for real.




I'm assuming he is, as he's repeatedly stated he likes the name list after all!

And I see his point, it is missing some important cultures, like options for Mesopotamian (Assyrian/Babylonian presumably, although Sumerian wouldn't be out of place), Persian, Turkic, Mongolian (for all your steppe nomad needs!), and other Native American outside of Mesomerican (such as Algonquin or Iroquoian for North America, or Quechuan or Tupian for South America). Honestly, it would be nice to have had a few extra pages of names to include those groups...


----------



## TwoSix (Oct 21, 2017)

EthanSental said:


> Was there this loud of a public outcry (maybe just a vocal minority) when Troll Lord Games published their 200+ book of names - Gygax' extraordinary book of names in 2004? Or since Gary was involved it got a pass?



People still buy dictionaries, I don't complain about that, either.  I'm not offended by people selling a list of names for money; I just don't feel an RPG supplement in 2017 is the appropriate place for a reference list.  In 1987, or even in 1997, it made sense.  It doesn't anymore.


----------



## Parmandur (Oct 21, 2017)

Gladius Legis said:


> Feats are a direct mechanical benefit to your character. They are useful by definition.
> 
> Names are ... of no benefit whatsoever. Hence, useless.



I don't allow feats as a DM, nor use them when I build a PC: hence, for me, they are useless, though some people might like that sort of thing. I will allow that you might not get much use out of a name tables, but some people like them and use them: hence not useless.


----------



## Morrus (Oct 21, 2017)

EthanSental said:


> Was there this loud of a public outcry (maybe just a vocal minority) when Troll Lord Games published their 200+ book of names - Gygax' extraordinary book of names in 2004? Or since Gary was involved it got a pass?
> 
> and Xanathars is more than a book of names for $50...jeez




I think you may be confused. It’s not a “public outcry”. It’s not a moral judgement. It’s a conversation between people about whether they want a particular product. This is a perfectly normal, healthy thing. 

Don’t get upset because some people don’t want an item as much as you do.


----------



## pkt77242 (Oct 21, 2017)

Gladius Legis said:


> You already have a computer or smartphone (hence you being able to post that), so you'd rather pay $50 dollars for a book of names instead of conducting a Google search for no extra cost?
> 
> OK, whatever.




Do you own a smartphone and computer?  Or a tablet and computer? or a Tablet and smartphone? 
Don't they all do the same things?  Why spend the extra money on one if you have another?  The names are helpful to some, and some people don't like phones at the table as people pay attention to them instead of what is going on.  Yes there is overlap, but in many areas of our lives we have overlap.  That is fine. 



Gladius Legis said:


> Which for $50 MSRP is entirely inadequate.
> 
> 17 pages out of 192 is names. That's almost 10% of a $50 book. That's unacceptable to any consumer who understands the value of a dollar.




No consumer understands the value of the $ for another consumer.  Each consumer sets their own value of the $ and the product.  To pretend that you know the value and other's don't is laughable.  You might think an item is worth $20 to you and I might think that it is $40 or vice versa.  

You don't like the table for names.  Great.  Don't buy it then.  Some people will see the table of names as Gravy and buy the book because they like the other stuff and some will like the table of names and consider it a key feature.  To each their own, just because you don't get value out of it doesn't mean that you need to be condescending to those who do see value from it.


----------



## DEFCON 1 (Oct 21, 2017)

Gladius Legis said:


> 17 pages out of 192 is names. That's almost 10% of a $50 book. That's unacceptable to any consumer who understands the value of a dollar.




If any of us understood the so-called value of a dollar, we wouldn't be spending it on ANY Dungeons & Dragons products.


----------



## Parmandur (Oct 21, 2017)

Demetrios1453 said:


> I was thinking the exact same thing myself when I saw that. I'm pretty sure that is what that is going cover, and it's about time, as its been part of the game since 2e at least (presumably 1e, but I can't definitively remember any text on it since its been so long since I read the books).



It's covered in the 5E DMG, and in 3E Deities & Demigods?


----------



## Gladius Legis (Oct 21, 2017)

pkt77242 said:


> Do you own a smartphone and computer?  Or a tablet and computer? or a Tablet and smartphone?
> Don't they all do the same things?  Why spend the extra money on one if you have another?



Um, I can play modern games on a computer at top settings? A full-sized keyboard is much easier to type things like short stories, reviews, etc. on, stuff that requires 1000s of words, than a smartphone's tiny virtual keyboard?

The computer has a purpose that a tablet/smartphone can't catch. This book doesn't have any purpose that a Google search can't match. Your equivalency is false.



> No consumer understands the value of the $ for another consumer.  Each consumer sets their own value of the $ and the product.  To pretend that you know the value and other's don't is laughable.  You might think an item is worth $20 to you and I might think that it is $40 or vice versa.
> 
> You don't like the table for names.  Great.  Don't buy it then.  Some people will see the table of names as Gravy and buy the book because they like the other stuff and some will like the table of names and consider it a key feature.  To each their own, just because you don't get value out of it doesn't mean that you need to be condescending to those who do see value from it.




I can still tell people they're wasting their money. I can still tell people they're encouraging bad business.


----------



## Remathilis (Oct 21, 2017)

DEFCON 1 said:


> If any of us understood the so-called value of a dollar, we wouldn't be spending it on ANY Dungeons & Dragons products.



True. We'd download the SRD and make our own supplement materials tailored to our homebrew worlds. No cost to any of that but time and printer paper.


----------



## Parmandur (Oct 21, 2017)

Gladius Legis said:


> Which for $50 MSRP is entirely inadequate.
> 
> 17 pages out of 192 is names. That's almost 10% of a $50 book. That's unacceptable to any consumer who understands the value of a dollar.



Less than $30 book, realistically: $2.95 for some good random tables is alright, I've spent more on excessively fancy coffee drinks once in a while.

The rest of the book is quite worth the cost alone, the names are a nice bonus.


----------



## pkt77242 (Oct 21, 2017)

Gladius Legis said:


> Um, I can play modern games on a computer at top settings? A full-sized keyboard is much easier to type things like short stories, reviews, etc. on, stuff that requires 1000s of words, than a smartphone's tiny virtual keyboard?
> 
> The computer has a purpose that a tablet/smartphone can't catch. This book doesn't have any purpose that a Google search can't match. Your equivalency is false.
> 
> ...




LOL. 
The book has plenty of things that the Internet doesn't have such as the finalized subclasses.  Only part of it is redundant which goes back to my point. 

As to the second part, you are stating it as an objective fact. What you are doing is telling people that they are wrong objectively on a very subjective topic.   You may see it as wasting money but they may see it as a good deal.  Value is in the eye of the beholder. 

It is completely fine that you don't like the MSRP or the inclusion of 17 pages of names. The problem is that you want to tell everyone else that they are wrong for liking either.   While you are free to do it, it says something about you.


----------



## Parmandur (Oct 21, 2017)

Demetrios1453 said:


> I'm assuming he is, as he's repeatedly stated he likes the name list after all!
> 
> And I see his point, it is missing some important cultures, like options for Mesopotamian (Assyrian/Babylonian presumably, although Sumerian wouldn't be out of place), Persian, Turkic, Mongolian (for all your steppe nomad needs!), and other Native American outside of Mesomerican (such as Algonquin or Iroquoian for North America, or Quechuan or Tupian for South America). Honestly, it would be nice to have had a few extra pages of names to include those groups...



Exactly: even "Mesoamerican" is a little too broad, are these Nahutal, Mayan, what...?

More random lists, with a broader variety, would suit me fine. Also, more non-human names, maybe by subrace (Hill Dwarf versus Mountain Dwarf for example), or monster race name tables (Orcs, Goblins, and such though I suppose Half-Orcs will have an Orcish name tables anyways).


----------



## Gladius Legis (Oct 21, 2017)

pkt77242 said:


> LOL.
> The book has plenty of things that the Internet doesn't have such as the finalized subclasses.




That were already printed in other previous releases. Next?

It's Xanathar's Guide to Names and Rehash.


----------



## gyor (Oct 21, 2017)

I want the product,  I just see it as constructive feedback,  I feel the space could have been better used in a multitude of ways. Still I like almost all the Subclasses,  I'm excited for most of the spells, looking forward to the racial feats,  hopeful that they are doing something cool with down time activities,  the spell rules and grid stuff looks useful,  it might even have some cool magic, items,  and the skills + Tool Profiencies have my interest. 

 It's really just mostly the human names list taking up so much space where they could have put something cool. Even setting suggestions for using the subclasses. 

 I mean it's annoying, but not near a deal breaker, I just put it out there in the hopes they read it and up their game in the future.


----------



## gyor (Oct 21, 2017)

Gladius Legis said:


> That were already printed in other previous releases. Next?




 Most of the classes were changed since the last UA they appeared in,  some like the Divine Soul (formly the, Favoured Soul)  significantly.


----------



## Parmandur (Oct 21, 2017)

Gladius Legis said:


> Um, I can play modern games on a computer at top settings? A full-sized keyboard is much easier to type things like short stories, reviews, etc. on, stuff that requires 1000s of words, than a smartphone's tiny virtual keyboard?
> 
> The computer has a purpose that a tablet/smartphone can't catch. This book doesn't have any purpose that a Google search can't match. Your equivalency is false.
> 
> ...



How is giving people what they want to pay for bad business? How is paying for what I want wasting my money? You are projecting you personal tastes as objective facts, when they really aren't.


----------



## Demetrios1453 (Oct 21, 2017)

Gladius Legis said:


> I can still tell people they're wasting their money. I can still tell people they're encouraging bad business.




And we can tell you right back that we don't feel like we're we are wasting our money and we don't feel like we're encouraging bad business.

Sent from my VS987 using EN World mobile app


----------



## Parmandur (Oct 21, 2017)

Demetrios1453 said:


> And we can tell you right back that we don't feel like we're we are wasting our money and we don't feel like we're encouraging bad business.
> 
> Sent from my VS987 using EN World mobile app



By definition, if we are spending money, it isn't bad business.


----------



## pkt77242 (Oct 21, 2017)

Gladius Legis said:


> That were already printed in other previous releases. Next?
> 
> It's Xanathar's Guide to Names and Rehash.




Now you are just trolling. 25+ have not been printed in a book.  Care to try again?


----------



## Demetrios1453 (Oct 21, 2017)

gyor said:


> Most of the classes were changed since the last UA they appeared in,  some like the Divine Soul (formly the, Favoured Soul)  significantly.



Heck, even the most popular, the Forge Cleric, had significant changes. I'm willing to bet that once we see the others, they will all have been changed, rendering the UAs obsolete.

Sent from my VS987 using EN World mobile app


----------



## Gladius Legis (Oct 21, 2017)

pkt77242 said:


> Now you are just trolling. 25+ have not been printed in a book.  Care to try again?




Mastermind, Swashbuckler, Sun Soul, Storm Sorcerer tell me you are wrong.


----------



## Dire Bare (Oct 21, 2017)

Gladius Legis said:


> Names are ... of no benefit whatsoever. Hence, useless.




From now on, Gladius Legis shall be known as "Hey you! Internet guy!" as names are useless.

You don't like the reprinted content in this book. Got it. You also don't seem to like the finalized versions of playtest material that was released through the Unearthed Arcana column. Got it. You don't think name lists are worth inclusion. Got it. This doesn't seem to be the book for you. I have no problem with any of that.

It's when you start telling the rest of us what is useful and worthwhile for us. I have no problem with the reprinted and finalized playtest content, or the name lists. In fact, everything on the table of contents sounds pretty good to me, and I will be purchasing the book. And I'm kinda irritated on your insinuation that my preferences are foolish, while yours are clearly superior.


----------



## Demetrios1453 (Oct 21, 2017)

Gladius Legis said:


> Mastermind, Swashbuckler, Sun Soul, Storm Sorcerer tell me you are wrong.



You do realize there are still 25+ new ones besides those four? So, despite those four being reprinted, the poster you quoted is 100% factually correct.

Sent from my VS987 using EN World mobile app


----------



## Parmandur (Oct 21, 2017)

gyor said:


> I want the product,  I just see it as constructive feedback,  I feel the space could have been better used in a multitude of ways. Still I like almost all the Subclasses,  I'm excited for most of the spells, looking forward to the racial feats,  hopeful that they are doing something cool with down time activities,  the spell rules and grid stuff looks useful,  it might even have some cool magic, items,  and the skills + Tool Profiencies have my interest.
> 
> It's really just mostly the human names list taking up so much space where they could have put something cool. Even setting suggestions for using the subclasses.
> 
> I mean it's annoying, but not near a deal breaker, I just put it out there in the hopes they read it and up their game in the future.



It's not for everyone: but I am fairly meh at random naming, and having something in a book at the table is useful. I would wager that WotC found a desire for such tables in their product research.


----------



## Gladius Legis (Oct 21, 2017)

Demetrios1453 said:


> You do realize there are still 25+ new ones besides those four? So, despite those four being reprinted, the poster you quoted is 100% factually correct.
> 
> Sent from my VS987 using EN World mobile app




Irrelevant. There's rehash, and there's 17 pages of names no one asked for. That's all I need to know that this is a waste of money and the paper it's printed on.


----------



## pkt77242 (Oct 21, 2017)

Gladius Legis said:


> Mastermind, Swashbuckler, Sun Soul, Storm Sorcerer tell me you are wrong.





Tell me there aren't 25+ more new ones. Again you are making this an objective issue not me I have no problem with you disliking the release, my problem is that you want to tell us all that we are wrong/bad for liking it.


----------



## pkt77242 (Oct 21, 2017)

Gladius Legis said:


> Irrelevant. There's rehash, and there's 17 pages of names no one asked for. That's all I need to know that this is a waste of money and the paper it's printed on.




It is perfectly fine for you to believe that. Just as it is perfectly fine for others to believe that it is worth their money.   No one is wrong in this situation, unless you try to tell others that what they believe is wrong/bad.


----------



## Parmandur (Oct 21, 2017)

Demetrios1453 said:


> Heck, even the most popular, the Forge Cleric, had significant changes. I'm willing to bet that once we see the others, they will all have been changed, rendering the UAs obsolete.
> 
> Sent from my VS987 using EN World mobile app



Beyond obselete, the UA versions we're explicitly not balanced, but were just concept tests. The final book versions will actually be appropriate for normal use.


----------



## Parmandur (Oct 21, 2017)

Gladius Legis said:


> Mastermind, Swashbuckler, Sun Soul, Storm Sorcerer tell me you are wrong.



27 new subclasses versus four popular reprints tell me you are wrong.


----------



## Demetrios1453 (Oct 21, 2017)

Gladius Legis said:


> Irrelevant. There's rehash, and there's 17 pages of names no one asked for. That's all I need to know that this is a waste of money and the paper it's printed on.



If it's not relevant, why did you respond to that poster as if it were? And, while I didn't ask for such lists, in quite happy to see them, so, at least for me and some others here, they are worth the paper they are printed on.

Sent from my VS987 using EN World mobile app


----------



## Parmandur (Oct 21, 2017)

27 new subclasses versus four popular reprints tell me you are wrong.


Gladius Legis said:


> Mastermind, Swashbuckler, Sun Soul, Storm Sorcerer tell me you are wrong.


----------



## Xeviat (Oct 21, 2017)

I’m real excited for this book. Volo’s gave me a lot of player and DM material. I didn’t use much of Sword Coast since I don’t run FR really, so Volo’s was a treat. I’m excited for the DM material in here, like the traps and the downtime. Heck, half of me is considering going back to 4E, so new 5E material is all that’s keeping me around. 


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## martinlochsen (Oct 21, 2017)

I play a lot with teenagers, and you know what? They don't go to the internet to find names. They use the ones in PHB (the most popular one is the elven name "Faen", which means Satan in norwegian and is a commonly used swear word, naturally). I have no idea why. They're supposed to be "digital natives" and all that, and they spend most of their lives online. Still, that's the way of it. I'm sure they are going to look at the lists of names in XG, and say "Wow, cool! New names to choose from!".

Most of the time, this content isn't going to be useful to me, but I can see its usefulness to others, and especially those kids, and I think it's cool that they get something they like and need. Not everything is about what I need, and anyway - I can also see certain situations when this could indeed be useful to me as well. Sometimes, you're caught without the internet - sometimes, you don't want to put a device on the table just for the sake of googling names. This is perfectly fine to me.


----------



## dropbear8mybaby (Oct 21, 2017)

hbarsquared said:


> I'm pretty sure this factually useless argument is factually useless.



Cite.



Prakriti said:


> dropbear was being sarcastic.



YOU DON'T KNOW ME!

I would like to add that I'm also in the boat of, "Reprinted content? WTF?!" But having said that, it's a couple of classes versus a whole bunch of new content. I've already pre-purchased the collector's edition cover and the DDB version. I don't feel like I was ripped off but I do feel like it could've been better.


----------



## Parmandur (Oct 21, 2017)

Books like this have page batches of 32: both appendices probably for put in to make up for an additional 32 page block necessitated by the other content once added up.


----------



## Guest 6801328 (Oct 21, 2017)

I might buy extra copies just to encourage WotC to print more books like this.  It's amusing watching the reactions.


----------



## Morrus (Oct 21, 2017)

Parmandur said:


> Books like this have page batches of 32: both appendices probably for put in to make up for an additional 32 page block necessitated by the other content once added up.




That’s not why that content is there. That’s the sort of thing first-time self publishing amateurs do, not professional experienced publishing companies.


----------



## Mouseferatu (Oct 21, 2017)

DEFCON 1 said:


> If any of us understood the so-called value of a dollar, we wouldn't be spending it on ANY Dungeons & Dragons products.




The corollary to this is that if people understood the value of a dollar, they would recognize that RPG books have been _under-priced_ for most of the lifespan of the hobby.

Yes, really. You can throw "demand" and "what the market will bear" at me if you like, but the fact is, relative to the cost of creation and materials, and relative to full-color books in most other markets, RPG books should frankly cost substantially more than they do.

(And no, I don't personally want the costs to go up. I'm much more of an RPG consumer than creator these days; with a few exceptions, such as _The Lost Citadel_, my focus is mostly on my original fiction, not gaming material. But that doesn't alter the facts.)


----------



## Parmandur (Oct 21, 2017)

Morrus said:


> That’s not why that content is there. That’s the sort of thing first-time sled publishing amateurs do, not professional experienced publishing companies.



I'm sure the main reason is demand, but if they had more subclasses ready for primetime, that Appendix would probably be on the block to be shortened.


----------



## Kurotowa (Oct 21, 2017)

On the issue of name tables, let's not forget that "People who post to EN World" is not an unbiased sample of "People who play Dungeons & Dragons". We are, by definition, self-selected with a bias towards people with greater Internet proficiency and comfort. That doesn't hold true for all or even most people who are going to buy this book.

So just like not every group is going to use the 20 pages of random encounters or the 10 pages of revised traps, not every group will use the 17 pages of character names. But certainly some will, and they'll be glad to have them. So why begrudge them their easy name tables? Do you really think that [Your Favorite Not Included Material] would have made it in if they'd cut the name tables? I highly doubt it.


----------



## gyor (Oct 21, 2017)

You know Weapon feats,  Skill Feats,  Mass Combat rules,  ect... we're supposed to go in that space,  but they were popular enough,  and they didn't have the time to fix them,  or the staff,  or the money,  so they grew desperate and decided on the names as filler,  but they way over did it,  they should have come up with a few other ideas. 

 Here are five easy,  none game breaking things they could filled those 17 pages with that would have been better and more interesting. 

 1. Every Deity in official D&D that has ever existed,  including the obscure ones,  including domains and home planes info. No one would have to go without their favourite God again. 
 2. Warlock Patrons in table form by Patron type. 
 3. Basic mechanics for other settings,  Warforged,  Lender,  Defiling rules,  and so on.  I know the books for other settings are never going to happen,  this makes that glaringly obvious,  but you could have given them the mechanical elements at least,  like races and key setting mechanics. 
 4. Convert 4e fighter/ranger/rogue/warlord at will powers into 5e feats,  once you figure out the first one,  the rest would be easy. 
 5. Fluff for the Subclasses. Where are the best places to find Shadow Magic Sorcerors,  what academies teach War Magic,  Divine Souls are common in the Old, Empires,  Samurai and Kenzai are native to Kara Tur and can be found often in these places,  The Celestial can be used in Darksun thusly,  and so on. 

 I mean seriously,  gathering those names was an hour of work.


----------



## SmokeyCriminal (Oct 21, 2017)

Mike Mearls did an interview on Nerdarchy a couple of days ago https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ld6bS3ptYws

He talks about the PHB +1 thing and the reason they did it was because he remembers at a Con, he overheard a couple of people saying how cool the game looked but that it looked too expensive to start playing because of all the books. He doesn't mention Power Gaming or Min/maxing.

I think the reason for PHB +1 is ultimately to keep the cost of entry low, and keeping people from feeling like if they don't have all the books then they arn't taking full advantage of their options. And possibly to keep the playing field a little more even. Having a mechanically better Character because you bought all the books comes off as a little 'Pay to Win'-ish.

He also talks about why they put some of the SCAG characters in XgtE. He said the reason was because the subclasses are general enough to be in a general expansion book. He doesn't mention the reason having to do anything with PHB +1

On an interesting side note. Mearls also points out that they are in their 38th month with 5e and they are still focused on 5e which wasn't the case before. By the 38th month, 3e was already 3.5e, and by the 38th month of 3.5e they were working on 4e, and by the 38th month of 4e they were working on 5e.


----------



## Morrus (Oct 21, 2017)

Kurotowa said:


> On the issue of name tables, let's not forget that "People who post to EN World" is not an unbiased sample of "People who play Dungeons & Dragons".




Who cares? We’re some people having a conversation and expressing our opinions to each other, and we are a 100% accurate sample of the people having this conversation.


----------



## gyor (Oct 21, 2017)

Morrus said:


> That’s not why that content is there. That’s the sort of thing first-time self publishing amateurs do, not professional experienced publishing companies.




 What about experienced publishing companies more interested in selling movie and video game rights then actually publishing,  so they cut staff and budgets to the publishing side,  make it coast on fumes. 

 Given that they cut out their novel publishing,  publish one none AP a year,  and two APs per year, can you really call them a professional publishing company anymore? 

 It's a she'll company that hold valuable movie rights,  that all it is and XGTE is just what it had to do to keep up appearances.  17 pages of names says it all. 

 Someone on another forum called it Xanather's Guide to Names and Rehash,  tongue in cheek obviously,  but it's I bad sign that there is truth in that. 

 I don't blame Mearls and Crawford they are trying to make lemon aid in a bad unfair situation,  I blame the suits who make bad choices.


----------



## Parmandur (Oct 21, 2017)

gyor said:


> You know Weapon feats,  Skill Feats,  Mass Combat rules,  ect... we're supposed to go in that space,  but they were popular enough,  and they didn't have the time to fix them,  or the staff,  or the money,  so they grew desperate and decided on the names as filler,  but they way over did it,  they should have come up with a few other ideas.
> 
> Here are five easy,  none game breaking things they could filled those 17 pages with that would have been better and more interesting.
> 
> ...



All of those things are less useful to me than some solid random name tables: the good stuff was well covered in the PHB, and Mearls has admitted that one of the books he wants to get out at some point is a "Faiths & Avatars" style book, so that would be where you see expanded info of that sort.

Mo' random name tables, is mo' better.


----------



## gyor (Oct 21, 2017)

SmokeyCriminal said:


> Mike Mearls did an interview on Nerdarchy a couple of days ago https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ld6bS3ptYws
> 
> He talks about the PHB +1 thing and the reason they did it was because he remembers at a Con, he overheard a couple of people saying how cool the game looked but that it looked too expensive to start playing because of all the books. He doesn't mention Power Gaming or Min/maxing.
> 
> ...




 Basing a rule on a conversation you over heard one time,  is not a good idea. 

 They should at least make it PHB +2 so that people still have reasons to buy more books.


----------



## UngeheuerLich (Oct 21, 2017)

gyor said:


> What about experienced publishing companies more interested in selling movie and video game rights then actually publishing,  so they cut staff and budgets to the publishing side,  make it coast on fumes.
> 
> Given that they cut out their novel publishing,  publish one none AP a year,  and two APs per year, can you really call them a professional publishing company anymore?
> 
> ...




Maybe a bit more content would be nice. But still that seems unfair towards the designers. There were about twice as many subclasses tested. Half of them just tested not well enough. Sucks... but I repeat myself: better less content than bad content.
I really hope we will see the mechanical expansion, the psion, the alchemist and so on later.


----------



## Kurotowa (Oct 21, 2017)

Morrus said:


> Who cares? We’re some people having a conversation and expressing our opinions to each other, and we are a 100% accurate sample of the people having this conversation.




I'm offering it as a refutation of the claim that name tables are useless to everyone. People here can freely say those tables are useless to _them_, but it's inaccurate to say they're so useless as to be unworthy of inclusion in the book.


----------



## Parmandur (Oct 21, 2017)

Morrus said:


> Who cares? We’re some people having a conversation and expressing our opinions to each other, and we are a 100% accurate sample of the people having this conversation.



One of the folks engaged in the conversation was projecting his personal preferences into abstract statements of what is "useful" or "wasting money" in some Kantian Moral Imperative sense that objectively applies everywhere and for everyone. That claim is...bold.


----------



## Kurotowa (Oct 21, 2017)

Parmandur said:


> One of the folks engaged in the conversation was projecting his personal preferences into abstract statements of what is "useful" or "wasting money" in some Kantian Moral Imperative sense that objectively applies everywhere and for everyone. That claim is...bold.




Indeed. Everyone here is free to converse and offer their opinions, and I'm free to cite factual reasons why their opinion is wrong. That's what makes it a debate rather than a cluster of soapboxes people are shouting from.


----------



## Parmandur (Oct 21, 2017)

gyor said:


> What about experienced publishing companies more interested in selling movie and video game rights then actually publishing,  so they cut staff and budgets to the publishing side,  make it coast on fumes.
> 
> Given that they cut out their novel publishing,  publish one none AP a year,  and two APs per year, can you really call them a professional publishing company anymore?
> 
> ...



WotC have made it pretty clear tome and again that the publishing strategy of three books a year has everything to do with what people want to buy, not insufficient resources at all. And it's working, I've bought every book so far, and I bought two books between 3rd and 4th editions.


----------



## Prakriti (Oct 21, 2017)

A lot of people felt that 5E didn't deliver on its promise to be "modular." I think those people would be complaining the loudest about _Xanathar's Guide_ if they had stuck around. But apparently they didn't.


----------



## gyor (Oct 21, 2017)

Parmandur said:


> All of those things are less useful to me than some solid random name tables: the good stuff was well covered in the PHB, and Mearls has admitted that one of the books he wants to get out at some point is a "Faiths & Avatars" style book, so that would be where you see expanded info of that sort.
> 
> Mo' random name tables, is mo' better.




 Where did you hear that?


----------



## Morrus (Oct 21, 2017)

Parmandur said:


> nd it's working, I've bought every book so far, and I bought two books between 3rd and 4th editions.




The definition of a working strategy is “Parmandur has bought every book so far”?

I mean, I haven’t. I haven’t seen ToA; last one I bought was CoS. Does that mean it’s not working? Or is it only when you buy them?


----------



## dropbear8mybaby (Oct 21, 2017)

gyor said:


> Basing a rule on a conversation you over heard one time,  is not a good idea.



That he no doubt then put into the surveys and had people investigate forum discussions on and talk to the AL organisers about before making a decision. You know, like how he and WotC have been telling us they're doing for the last 38 months.



gyor said:


> They should at least make it PHB +2 so that people still have reasons to buy more books.



For AL, PHB +1 is definitely a good limit. I can break the game with just the PHB. +2 would have so many potentially broken combinations and require up to $150 USD expenditure. That is a significant threshold between having players and not having players join the hobby. Have you ever played AL?


----------



## Prakriti (Oct 21, 2017)

UngeheuerLich said:


> I really hope we will see the mechanical expansion, the psion, the alchemist and so on later.



But this _is_ the mechanical expansion -- the one they have been teasing for a couple years now. And it doesn't fit my (most people's?) definition of a mechanical expansion.


----------



## Morrus (Oct 21, 2017)

I don’t really know anything about DDAL rules. I’m not keen on the fact that I’m being asked to buy reprinted content to subsidise a club I’m not part of. I’d rather they just changed their rules.


----------



## Guest 6801328 (Oct 21, 2017)

gyor said:


> You know Weapon feats,  Skill Feats,  Mass Combat rules,  ect... we're supposed to go in that space,  but they were popular enough,  and they didn't have the time to fix them,  or the staff,  or the money,  so they grew desperate and decided on the names as filler,  but they way over did it,  they should have come up with a few other ideas.




No, I don't "know" this.  In fact I find it improbable.

While a list of names isn't the most exciting and useful content I can imagine, let's look at your suggestions:



> Here are five easy,  none game breaking things they could filled those 17 pages with that would have been better and more interesting.
> 
> 1. Every Deity in official D&D that has ever existed,  including the obscure ones,  including domains and home planes info. No one would have to go without their favourite God again.




I would never use this.



> 2. Warlock Patrons in table form by Patron type.




I would never use this.



> 3. Basic mechanics for other settings,  Warforged,  Lender,  Defiling rules,  and so on.  I know the books for other settings are never going to happen,  this makes that glaringly obvious,  but you could have given them the mechanical elements at least,  like races and key setting mechanics.




I would never use this.



> 4. Convert 4e fighter/ranger/rogue/warlord at will powers into 5e feats,  once you figure out the first one,  the rest would be easy.




I would definitely never use this.



> 5. Fluff for the Subclasses. Where are the best places to find Shadow Magic Sorcerors,  what academies teach War Magic,  Divine Souls are common in the Old, Empires,  Samurai and Kenzai are native to Kara Tur and can be found often in these places,  The Celestial can be used in Darksun thusly,  and so on.




I would find this about as useful as a list of names.  Or maybe less.  I'm not even remotely interested in "official" settings (FR is bad enough...I don't need more) so anything that is setting specific is wasted on me.  But I might borrow some of the names in order to save time.  In other words, a list of cool names can be useful.  Oh, jeez, look...we've come full circle.



> I mean seriously,  gathering those names was an hour of work.




Your argument would be better served by less hyperbole.

As for the complaint about reprints from SCAG, I don't own SCAG (because it's mostly FR-specific stuff) so I'm actually pleased XGtE will have those sub-classes.

TL;DR: "One man's meat..." etc.


----------



## UngeheuerLich (Oct 21, 2017)

Prakriti said:


> But this _is_ the mechanical expansion -- the one they have been teasing for a couple years now. And it doesn't fit my (most people's?) definition of a mechanical expansion.




Yes. Disappointing in a way... I hope we get the missing content in a different way. But I omce again repeat myself. Better no bad content. In 3rd edition for example PHB 2, epic level handbook were all bad actually...
I really want more content... really. And better sooner tham later. But I want dnd 5e products for some more years and want it to be healthy.
Only the price point is too high for xgte. 50 dollars are too much for a 175 pages book.


----------



## tuxedoraptor (Oct 21, 2017)

[Edited — do not promote piracy on my site. - Morrus.]


----------



## Parmandur (Oct 21, 2017)

gyor said:


> Where did you hear that?



He had an extended conversation on Twitter about that a while back: said it wasn't coming too soon, but what was on his radar for 5E.


----------



## Guest 6801328 (Oct 21, 2017)

Morrus said:


> The definition of a working strategy is “Parmandur has bought every book so far”?
> 
> I mean, I haven’t. I haven’t seen ToA; last one I bought was CoS. Does that mean it’s not working? Or is it only when you buy them?




Off-topic, but you should get it.  CoS is my favorite so far, but ToA is second (especially if you get some of the 3rd party content off of DM's guild).  I don't even know which one is in distant third place.  Maybe OotA.



UngeheuerLich said:


> Only the price point is too high for xgte. 50 dollars are too much for a 175 pages book.




Yeah, that complaint I will agree with.  Whether or not you're happy with the content, the price is too high.  I suppose that just makes it hurt all the more if you're _not_ happy with the content.


----------



## Morrus (Oct 21, 2017)

Elfcrusher said:


> especially if you get some of the 3rd party content off of DM's guild).




I’ve never been to DMs Guild. I’m not really plugged in to the WotC ecosystem any more.


----------



## Parmandur (Oct 21, 2017)

Morrus said:


> The definition of a working strategy is “Parmandur has bought every book so far”?
> 
> I mean, I haven’t. I haven’t seen ToA; last one I bought was CoS. Does that mean it’s not working? Or is it only when you buy them?



I say "working" in two senses: primarily, their strategy is working for me, insofar as for the first time in my time playing D&D (over 16 years) I am buying and reading all the books. They keep delighting me, and that is what matters to me.

Secondarily, and important to me entirely because it helps with the primary consideration (my interests) in the long term, it is working for WotC sales numbers and growing the game.

Whether it works for any other given individual is unimportant to me (if I cared about that, I wouldn't be I to Do&D in the first place), as long as the commercial winds continue to blow my way. Hopefully the MCU style movie plans work by the time my children are old enough to get into them and the merchandising, that would be fantastic.


----------



## EthanSental (Oct 21, 2017)

Morrus said:


> I think you may be confused. It’s not a “public outcry”. It’s not a moral judgement. It’s a conversation between people about whether they want a particular product. This is a perfectly normal, healthy thing.
> 
> Don’t get upset because some people don’t want an item as much as you do.




I'm not the one upset   Pkt post right after yours summed up my sentiments as well.


----------



## Parmandur (Oct 21, 2017)

Prakriti said:


> But this _is_ the mechanical expansion -- the one they have been teasing for a couple years now. And it doesn't fit my (most people's?) definition of a mechanical expansion.



I mean, it is a book full of mechanical expansions: they called it a first major expansion, but never the last or only. It nearly doubles the PC concepts from the core book, has a new background system, a new downtime system, new trap rules and then a bunch of odds and ends based on popular input.


----------



## Phasestar (Oct 21, 2017)

Looks like a very good selection of new sub-classes, more than I expected honestly.

"This is Your Life" sounds like rules for more detailed background generation?

Within the DM Tools, I like the sound of most of it, especially more on Encounter Building, more on Tools, Downtime activities of all kinds including Crafting, and more info on Magic Items.  As a DM, I will definitely be getting this.  It seems like their goal was a PHB1.5 and DMG1.5 combined.

New spells is a good thing generally.

I don't have much interest in the name tables as I also tend to use online generators, though I will take a look at them to see if they are better than the alternative.

Would have preferred to see more added to the DM's section instead of the name tables.


----------



## Guest 6801328 (Oct 21, 2017)

Parmandur said:


> I say "working" in two senses: primarily, their strategy is working for me, insofar as for the first time in my time playing D&D (over 16 years) I am buying and reading all the books. They keep delighting me, and that is what matters to me.
> 
> Secondarily, and important to me entirely because it helps with the primary consideration (my interests) in the long term, it is working for WotC sales numbers and growing the game.
> 
> Whether it works for any other given individual is unimportant to me (if I cared about that, I wouldn't be I to Do&D in the first place), as long as the commercial winds continue to blow my way. Hopefully the MCU style movie plans work by the time my children are old enough to get into them and the merchandising, that would be fantastic.




I'm with you.  I also took a long hiatus from D&D...I would flip through the books and think, "I am clearly not the market for this."  Now with 5e I love the books.  Even the adventurers that I haven't ended up running (or playing in) I've enjoyed simply reading.


----------



## dropbear8mybaby (Oct 21, 2017)

Morrus said:


> I don’t really know anything about DDAL rules. I’m not keen on the fact that I’m being asked to buy reprinted content to subsidise a club I’m not part of. I’d rather they just changed their rules.



I'm not keen on reprinted either but I don't think the argument holds up that it's solely being done for AL. And even if it was, whether you play in AL or not, like it or not, it is a big part of expanding the hobby and keeping it relevant by bringing in new players and retaining old. It, therefore, by proxy, supports this site.



Elfcrusher said:


> Yeah, that complaint I will agree with.  Whether or not you're happy with the content, the price is too high.  I suppose that just makes it hurt all the more if you're _not_ happy with the content.



I think people are judging it by the last ten years of book pricing rather than the current costs of publishing. As Mouseferatu said, the books, by all rights, should cost significantly more than they do, and that it's gone up a bit over what SCAG was sold for (since it's being compared to that), isn't that surprising or really a bad thing. It had to happen eventually.



Morrus said:


> What a charming conversationalist you are.



That seems a bit hostile...


----------



## Yaarel (Oct 22, 2017)

Panda-s1 said:


> Y'know a list of human names is one of those cases where I trust a book over the internet.




The internet is a superior source for reallife names.

For example, here is an excellent source for Viking *Norse names* (etymology) and nicknames. Here is a nice overview of Norse names.

There is zero chance that the Norse names in Xanathar’s appendix will be as accurate.



I have to admit, the appendix inspires me to look up reallife names on the internet.

But then the D&D list of official reallife cultures comes across as a political choice that begs to be problematic. For example Greek (Christian) and Arabic (Muslim) names are fully supported, but Hebrew (Jewish) names are noticeably absent. 

Other cultures are also relevant yet absent. Finnish (was in 1e and influences Tolkien), Tungusic/Altaic (reallife shamans), Persian (Zoroastrianism), Turkic (neolithic revolution, Troy, etcetera), North American Indigenous Peoples, and so on. I understand why Xanathar offers a sampling of reallife cultures, but time will tell if that was wise.

In any case, I like using reallife to inspire ‘esque-esque’ cultures.


----------



## Morrus (Oct 22, 2017)

Parmandur said:


> I mean, he wasn't wrong per se: a rising tide floats all boats.




Sure. I’m still a D&D fan; I’ve been one for 30 years. I disagree that that means I have to automatically approve of every design decision they make, and this particular thing, trivial as it is, is not one I’m in love with. 

If I wasn’t allowed to dislike parts of D&D I would have stopped being a fan 29 years ago.


----------



## Morrus (Oct 22, 2017)

gyor said:


> I don't always agree with you, but I respect your integrity,  and I find it weird that some people think sucking up to RPG companies will boost readership some how. People tend to prefer honest opinions,  it's valuable when making purchasing decisions.




There’s a difference between reporting news (which is a factual practice) and having conversations with fellow community members. The latter is me chatting; it’s always going to be just that. I don’t tend to write editorials, but I do engage in free conversation.


----------



## MechaPilot (Oct 22, 2017)

hbarsquared said:


> I'm pretty sure this factually useless argument is factually useless.




True.

Fiscally indefensible would be more accurate.  There are so many free sources for names from other cultures that it's laughable to pay for a list of real world names when it's so easy to either directly look them up online or (for those who prefer no digital presence at the table) compile a short list as a word document and print it off before attending the session.

Besides, every supermarket I've been to has small baby name booklets in the impulse-buy section that sell for $3 or less and include thousands of names separated by culture of origin and gender.

Plus, if having a naming resource is really so important to people, why have they not already invested in one?  They're literally less than the price of a cup of coffee, and they're in the register aisles at every Meijer and Wal-Mart I've ever been in.


----------



## Parmandur (Oct 22, 2017)

Morrus said:


> Sure. I’m still a D&D fan; I’ve been one for 30 years. I disagree that that means I have to automatically approve of every design decision they make, and this particular thing, trivial as it is, is not one I’m in love with.
> 
> If I wasn’t allowed to dislike parts of D&D I would have stopped being a fan 29 years ago.



And that's fair; not everyone has to like everything. Doesn't take away from my liking it, and having a use for it.


----------



## gyor (Oct 22, 2017)

Elfcrusher said:


> No, I don't "know" this.  In fact I find it improbable.
> 
> While a list of names isn't the most exciting and useful content I can imagine, let's look at your suggestions:
> 
> ...




 It wasn't hyperbole it's a 100% serious,  I could literally do that in an hour. Maybe I do that tomorrow,  set up a timer and see how many names I can find,  editing for duplicates and so on.


----------



## MechaPilot (Oct 22, 2017)

DEFCON 1 said:


> I find it ironic that some people find paying $50 once a year for mechanical options is a hardship when 10 years ago they would be paying $35 every month for mechanical options... in both cases having material they'd probably only use 15% of.  Especially now that we've had three years of incessant complaints about WotC not releasing new game mechanic material and cries of "I want to give WotC my money but they won't take it!"  Three years of complaints for more character options, and now that they can have them, more complaints of "I'm not going to spend my money on them."
> 
> Now admittedly, the people in this thread who are saying they aren't going to spend the $50 are most likely _not_ the same people who've been shouting this entire time "Where are my character options!"... but I do find it amusing how quickly the narrative changes nonetheless.  But on the bright side for everyone who doesn't want to buy the book... you probably can all use the UA articles themselves for your own home games as needed because the mechanics have all seemed relatively reasonable (with maybe an adjustment made only here or there in specific cases.)




I'm one of the posters who's bemoaned the lack of additional options, and this book looks like it isn't worth $50.  There's no irony involved there.  Every $50 book so far has been about 300+ pages.  To be expected to pay the same price for a book roughly 33% smaller is irrational.

As to the percentage of use argument, it's true that I don't use everything out of every book.  However, I tend to use far more than 15%.  Typically, I'll use at least 25-40% in actual play.  I'll also frequently use another 10-25% as inspiration, either story based inspiration, or inspiration for homebrew mechanics.


----------



## Parmandur (Oct 22, 2017)

MechaPilot said:


> I'm one of the posters who's bemoaned the lack of additional options, and this book looks like it isn't worth $50.  There's no irony involved there.  Every $50 book so far has been about 300+ pages.  To be expected to pay the same price for a book roughly 33% smaller is irrational.
> 
> As to the percentage of use argument, it's true that I don't use everything out of every book.  However, I tend to use far more than 15%.  Typically, I'll use at least 25-40% in actual play.  I'll also frequently use another 10-25% as inspiration, either story based inspiration, or inspiration for homebrew mechanics.



Volo's MSRP was $50, and it is 224 pages, one 32 page section longer. The APs are a bit longer at 256 for $50.

A lot of work went into this, page count versus man hours: balancing mechanical options isn't free.


----------



## Arilyn (Oct 22, 2017)

I will not be buying this book. I find it odd that game designers, who no doubt love DnD, are not overflowing with cooler ideas for their first major expansion. Rehashed content and 17 pages of names, the vast majority human from the real world??? 

I do not expect to love or use everything in a book but really? As for the designers ensuring quality, they have had more than enough time. Just not seeing the passion.


----------



## MechaPilot (Oct 22, 2017)

EthanSental said:


> Was there this loud of a public outcry (maybe just a vocal minority) when Troll Lord Games published their 200+ book of names. . . .




They were clearly Trolling by publishing that book.


----------



## Parmandur (Oct 22, 2017)

Arilyn said:


> I will not be buying this book. I find it odd that game designers, who no doubt love DnD, are not overflowing with cooler ideas for their first major expansion. Rehashed content and 17 pages of names, the vast majority human from the real world???
> 
> I do not expect to love or use everything in a book but really? As for the designers ensuring quality, they have had more than enough time. Just not seeing the passion.



Watch the subclass preview videos: plenty of excitement and passion involved.


----------



## MechaPilot (Oct 22, 2017)

Remathilis said:


> True. We'd download the SRD and make our own supplement materials tailored to our homebrew worlds. No cost to any of that but time and printer paper.




I already do that.


----------



## MechaPilot (Oct 22, 2017)

Parmandur said:


> Volo's MSRP was $50, and it is 224 pages, one 32 page section longer. The APs are a bit longer at 256 for $50.
> 
> A lot of work went into this, page count versus man hours: balancing mechanical options isn't free.




I get that it isn't free.  That's why I'm not asking for it for free.  I'm willing to pay for product, but that product must be reasonably priced, and the seller must not be asking me to pay for something I could google for free (the names) or for something I already bought (a situation faced by those who already purchased the SCAG, although I did not purchase it the argument remains valid for those who did).


----------



## MechaPilot (Oct 22, 2017)

Elfcrusher said:


> I might buy extra copies just to encourage WotC to print more books like this.  It's amusing watching the reactions.




If you do, I'll take one of the extras off your hand for $10-$15, just to lessen your personal losses, because I'm friendly like that.


----------



## MechaPilot (Oct 22, 2017)

Prakriti said:


> A lot of people felt that 5E didn't deliver on its promise to be "modular." I think those people would be complaining the loudest about _Xanathar's Guide_ if they had stuck around. But apparently they didn't.




Some of us did stick around.


----------



## Dire Bare (Oct 22, 2017)

SmokeyCriminal said:


> On an interesting side note. Mearls also points out that they are in their 38th month with 5e and they are still focused on 5e which wasn't the case before. By the 38th month, 3e was already 3.5e, and by the 38th month of 3.5e they were working on 4e, and by the 38th month of 4e they were working on 5e.




That's pretty cool.


----------



## Lylandra (Oct 22, 2017)

Prakriti said:


> A lot of people felt that 5E didn't deliver on its promise to be "modular." I think those people would be complaining the loudest about _Xanathar's Guide_ if they had stuck around. But apparently they didn't.




Well, I was among the people who were hyped about the "modular" promise of 5e and I was really disappointed that it didn't deliver. I bought the core three and tested some of it (the books are gorgeous and some of the basic ideas of 5e are really neat), but I couldn't get myself to change systems. It became such a non-issue that right now, 5e isn't that much of a hot topic anymore. So why complain when I never really wanted to get on high hopes for maybe getting modular rules with XG only to have them crushed again...

Now I will maybe give 5e a second try some time, but maybe the XG (and its subclasses) are a bit cheaper when that time arises.


----------



## Parmandur (Oct 22, 2017)

MechaPilot said:


> I get that it isn't free.  That's now why I'm asking for it for free.  I'm willing to pay for product, but that product must be reasonably priced, and the seller must not be asking me to pay for something I could google for free (the names) or for something I already bought (a situation faced by those who already purchased the SCAG, although I did not purchase it the argument remains valid for those who did).



The book is $30 if you don't pay the FLGS price (and if you do, you are paying for the FLGS, not the book), and any way you slice it, it is priced similarly to similar books of a similar length: hardly unfair.


----------



## MechaPilot (Oct 22, 2017)

Parmandur said:


> The book is $30 if you don't pay the FLGS price (and if you do, you are paying for the FLGS, not the book), and any way you slice it, it is priced similarly to similar books of a similar length: hardly unfair.




$30 is close enough to being fair for me that I'll likely buy the book.  But, it's so close to being fair for me because I didn't buy the SCAG and won't be paying for some of the content twice.  It does mean that I'll never be willing to pay more than $10-15 for the SCAG however, because I'll already own some of that material, making the MSRP unreasonable for me.


----------



## SmokeyCriminal (Oct 22, 2017)

gyor said:


> Basing a rule on a conversation you over heard one time,  is not a good idea.
> 
> They should at least make it PHB +2 so that people still have reasons to buy more books.




I think its less about that one specific conversation he heard that one time, and more about it prompting WotC to consider cost to entry and what it might imply to potential players to allow all/X number of books. Even just making it PHB +2 implies that if you want to take full advantage of your options, you need to spend 33% more money for it. Which is kinda a thing WotC does with Magic, so we know its not like they're above it, but I guess they just decided that its not what they want D&D to "say" to players.

Also you might be interested to know that I heard Mike talk about how WotC is changing their 2APs a year to 1AP a year. I think they're keeping the AP for the fall release, and the spring release would now be a "random" release. Or maybe think of it more as a "flexible slot."


----------



## Morrus (Oct 22, 2017)

SmokeyCriminal said:


> On an interesting side note. Mearls also points out that they are in their 38th month with 5e and they are still focused on 5e which wasn't the case before. By the 38th month, 3e was already 3.5e, and by the 38th month of 3.5e they were working on 4e, and by the 38th month of 4e they were working on 5e.




I'm not so sure that's particularly noteworthy. I've reported on the announcements of four editions of D&D now, over a period of nearly 20 years. They said that - or something similar - every time. And they're more fond of secrecy these days than they have been historically. They won't tell us what book they're releasing next, let alone when 6E may or may not be worked on. While I don't think they are planning 6E, I don't think it's surprising that Mearls said something like that.


----------



## Parmandur (Oct 22, 2017)

MechaPilot said:


> $30 is close enough to being fair for me that I'll likely buy the book.  But, it's so close to being fair for me because I didn't buy the SCAG and won't be paying for some of the content twice.  It does mean that I'll never be willing to pay more than $10-15 for the SCAG however, because I'll already own some of that material, making the MSRP unreasonable for me.



SCAG is less than $30 on Amazon right now: if you haven't bought it in two years, doubt you were about to, or at least not near enough for two and a half pages of content to make a difference. So, since you didn't buy the previous book, they have increased the value of this book for you: and I don't care about the small redundancy.


----------



## MechaPilot (Oct 22, 2017)

Parmandur said:


> SCAG is less than $30 on Amazon right now: if you haven't bought it in two years, doubt you were about to, or at least not near enough for two and a half pages of content to make a difference. So, since you didn't buy the previous book, they have increased the value of this book for you: and I don't care about the small redundancy.




No.  I'm not buying it at $29.64 (the current Amazon price).  It has too much FR setting crap in it for that price to be a good value for me.  If I can find it in a bargain bin or otherwise lightly used for $10-15 then I'll pick it up.


----------



## Yaarel (Oct 22, 2017)

Xanathar’s Guide To Everything is valuable to me.

I care about *good* content, meaning balanced mechanics, themes that interest me, and useful customizability.

Xanathars has gone thru the patient public playtest-feedback process that makes 5e excellent.

Heh − good content is better than no content − and no content is better than bad content.

I look forward to this aspect of the book.


----------



## SmokeyCriminal (Oct 22, 2017)

I actually really like the name list in the book. I'm sure it speaks to both my lack of D&D experience and lack of creativity, and I'm actually a little embarrassed to admit it, but I literally never once considered naming my character anything other then a fantasy name, an English name, or a spanish name. 

My go-to is to make cool sounding spanish words into names like Cielo Devallena, which actually means sky whale, because I love hearing my friends say it with their different accents.

But it wasn't untill I saw the names list in the book that I thought "An Arabic, or Egyptian name would be really cool."

And the funny thing is that it seems so rediculously obvious to me now!

So for the people that think the list is completely useless let me be the reminder that some of us D&D newbs really do need things spelled out that painfully obvious.


( Geez, its such a no-brainer, and I was already basically doing it with spanish. How did I not make that finally connection?!)


----------



## Guest 6801328 (Oct 22, 2017)

Morrus said:


> I’ve never been to DMs Guild. I’m not really plugged in to the WotC ecosystem any more.




I hadn't either until I read _your_ post about their "Adept" program and AL-legal content....


----------



## Yaarel (Oct 22, 2017)

Morrus said:


> I've reported on the announcements of four editions of D&D now, over a period of nearly 20 years.




Just have to say, Enworld.org is consistently, comprehensively, and qualitatively the best newssource for what is going on in D&D.


----------



## Morrus (Oct 22, 2017)

Elfcrusher said:


> I hadn't either until I read _your_ post about their "Adept" program and AL-legal content....




My day job is reporting RPG news. I’m glad you got something from it! Mission accomplished!


----------



## SmokeyCriminal (Oct 22, 2017)

Morrus said:


> I'm not so sure that's particularly noteworthy. I've reported on the announcements of four editions of D&D now, over a period of nearly 20 years. They said that - or something similar - every time. And they're more fond of secrecy these days than they have been historically. They won't tell us what book they're releasing next, let alone when 6E may or may not be worked on. While I don't think they are planning 6E, I don't think it's surprising that Mearls said something like that.




Ya I can see how they would say that kinda stuff for every edition. But now I'm curious to ask you, since you've been reporting and seen all the edition shifts. Have you noticed any tell-tale signs that point to an edition shift? Like a dip or bump in quality, or maybe an increase or decrease in products, or maybe just in tone when they speak about the edition?


----------



## Mercule (Oct 22, 2017)

I'll fully cop to being down on the Realms and extremely turned off by the apparent intent for WotC to use Realms IP to name generic books. I'm especially annoyed that they picked a stupid name, regardless of origin, for this book. I can hardly say the name "Xanathar" without feeling like an imbecile -- not a trait I want in a book. Really, they could have called it "Toejamlicker's Guide to Everything" and it would have sounded less stupid. YMMV on the actual quality of the name; it's an aesthetic thing and the actual sound bothers me.

Looking at the ToC for Xanthippe's Guide, I have mixed feelings. It seems kinda short. It's about the same size as the 1E PHB, IIRC. If the type font is large, as has been the trend, then it's seriously short on content. What content is there looks a bit hit-or-miss. I like names, but think that's one of the first casualties of the Internet age. Chapter 1 looks like an extremely mixed bag, with about 50% of the subclasses even interesting enough for me to want to look at them once. Chapter 2 will either be very good or complete hackery -- 3E and 3.5E DM advice pretty much sucked -- but the random encounter tables and downtime both may have some promise. Chapter 3 is a bucket o' spells, with all that entails.

What I'll probably end up doing is piecemealing the content on DDB, for character creation. I've got a PC Divine Soul (from UA), already. I really liked shadow magic in 3.5, so I'm curious about the Shadow Sorcerer. War Mage was one of the specific 3.5 classes I wanted to see implemented as a 5E Wizard subclass, so that's intriguing. I liked the Horizon Walker concept as presented in UA, but no one has shown interest in it, in my game. More spells don't suck, either. At a certain point, either I'll have picked up enough bits and pieces on DDB that the whole book makes sense or it won't. I'm pretty bummed by the news that the UA Ranger won't be made available as a whole because that and the Favored/Divine Soul were the two things I really wanted to see come to DDB with this release.


----------



## Mouseferatu (Oct 22, 2017)

I've already preordered XGtE from Amazon, and don't regret it.

Would I have preferred some content other than lists of names for those pages? Yes, absolutely. Would I have preferred they not reprint subclasses from SCAG? Again, very much. In fact, I'd prefer to see nothing reprinted from book to book in the future, unless it's dramatically changed or very important to the topic (such as a setting book containing material originally envisioned for that specific world).

But none of those are even remotely dealbreakers. There are still new race options, two dozen new subclass options, new spells, new downtime rules... I expect to use a far higher percentage of the content in XGtE than I did most of the 3E sourcebooks, even allowing for the names and reprints. For me, at least, on a pure scale of "amount of potentially useful or interesting material," this book is better priced than a lot of others, from this edition or prior.


----------



## Greg K (Oct 22, 2017)

Mouseferatu said:


> I expect to use a far higher percentage of the content in XGtE than I did most of the 3E sourcebooks, even allowing for the names and reprints.




Myself, with regard to player material, I expect XTGE to be as useful to me as most WOTC 3e sourcebooks, which is to say almost nothing will useful for my games*.  This is based upon my impressions of the UA versions of the subclasses, the XTGE previews (e.g. the Forge Domain), and the interviews with both Mearls and Crawford.

* A few monster books aside, the only 3e WOTC sourcebooks that I found worth purchasing were Unearthed Arcana, Fiendish Codex 1: Hordes of the Abyss, and to a lesser extent Heroes of Horror,  Stormwrack, and Complete Mage.  Otherwise, I was better off with 3rd parties (including Lions' Den) and, to my surprise, the material on the websites of a few 3e designers whose WOTC work did not impress me.


----------



## cbwjm (Oct 22, 2017)

I'm looking forward to receiving this. I have it preordered on Amazon which is taunting me with its estimated delivery date. I think I'm going to enjoy reading through this one, the names will be pretty handy to. Sure, I can google them but having a handy list to quickly choose a name will be useful to me.


----------



## UngeheuerLich (Oct 22, 2017)

Elfcrusher said:


> Yeah, that complaint I will agree with.  Whether or not you're happy with the content, the price is too high.  I suppose that just makes it hurt all the more if you're _not_ happy with the content.




Hmm. Isn't it more hurtful if you want the content? If you don't llike it you won't have to pay anything.

My solution was buying it on dnd beyond. I thought the price there is ok and I was eager to support dnd beyonnd and try out a rulebook after trying it out for an adventure.


----------



## cbwjm (Oct 22, 2017)

Currently $30USD on Amazon. Seems an okay price to me.


----------



## UngeheuerLich (Oct 22, 2017)

Mercule said:


> What I'll probably end up doing is piecemealing the content on DDB, for character creation. I've got a PC Divine Soul (from UA), already. I really liked shadow magic in 3.5, so I'm curious about the Shadow Sorcerer. War Mage was one of the specific 3.5 classes I wanted to see implemented as a 5E Wizard subclass, so that's intriguing. I liked the Horizon Walker concept as presented in UA, but no one has shown interest in it, in my game. More spells don't suck, either. At a certain point, either I'll have picked up enough bits and pieces on DDB that the whole book makes sense or it won't. I'm pretty bummed by the news that the UA Ranger won't be made available as a whole because that and the Favored/Divine Soul were the two things I really wanted to see come to DDB with this release.




That is fair.


----------



## R_Chance (Oct 22, 2017)

cbwjm said:


> Currently $30USD on Amazon. Seems an okay price to me.




Agreed. If a MSRP of $50 is prohibitive (or if you don't have a FLGS) DDB or Amazon provide cheaper alternatives. Or B&N with a members card and / or coupon. Or piece meal it on DDB, or buy a (soon to be) used copy, or just don't buy it. I can understand some people being disappointed in the table of contents (although I like to see the actual content before I make a final judgment), and wanting a different book, but in the end, as Yoda might say, "buy or buy not. There is no try". Hopefully the disappointed people find other content more to their liking. If enough people don't buy it, WotC will notice and adjust their strategy I'd imagine...


----------



## WayOfTheFourElements (Oct 22, 2017)

R_Chance said:


> Agreed. If a MSRP of $50 is prohibitive (or if you don't have a FLGS) DDB or Amazon provide cheaper alternatives. Or B&N with a members card and / or coupon. Or piece meal it on DDB, or buy a (soon to be) used copy, or just don't buy it. I can understand some people being disappointed in the table of contents (although I like to see the actual content before I make a final judgment), and wanting a different book, but in the end, as Yoda might say, "buy or buy not. There is no try". Hopefully the disappointed people find other content more to their liking. If enough people don't buy it, WotC will notice and adjust their strategy I'd imagine...




Personally, I would love to see some international pricing on D&D Beyond. $50 is half of what the average family lives on where I am, and shipping from Amazon is about $16 alone. It isn't restrictive for me, but I know that not one of my players will ever buy a single book; the price is too restrictive. Until then, they will continue to pirate everything. Unless they can afford to buy the books, they'll find the content for free, anyway, and are happily looking forward the release of XGtE.


----------



## dropbear8mybaby (Oct 22, 2017)

WayOfTheFourElements said:


> Personally, I would love to see some international pricing on D&D Beyond.




It's $29.99 USD on DDB.


----------



## Li Shenron (Oct 22, 2017)

So now we know why it was so important to have the SCAG reprints... without them, AL players wouldn't be able to have a character name!

Except Arcana Clerics and Undying Warlocks of course, those deserve to remain nameless.


----------



## The_Hanged_Man (Oct 22, 2017)

I do agree that $50 for effectively 150 pgs after removing filler/reprint is on the steep side. At least it has a sizable amount of that is useful crunch so I will still be buying it for the sub-classes mainly. I also appreciate the playtesting and feedback that went into them as well so I'm not going to sweat the $10.


----------



## Psikerlord# (Oct 22, 2017)

I think there's some great GM stuff in here. The lists of names are invaluable for improvising imo, all in one spot, no need to google it and sift through the dross, etc.


----------



## BMaC (Oct 22, 2017)

At only three books a year I would appreciate it if WotC was more ambitious with its releases.  They should call this "UA's revised guide to subclasses"


----------



## martinlochsen (Oct 22, 2017)

I think the biggest problem with this book really, is that it lacks anything that makes me excited. It seems to cover a lot of stuff that I never thought was missing from the game. Most of the content seems fine. I find nothing here to be hostile to (except the SCAG reprints - it's a really weird decision to include those, AL or no AL), but there's nothing that makes me say "Yay, finally! There's that thing that I wanted!".

WoTC is doing a real good job getting feedback on the designs they are making, but I wonder if they should pay more attention to what content people actually want, in stead of just checking if people like the stuff they have already made? There are so many things people seem to be asking for in the forums around the net, and none of that is in the book. Rules on psionics, better crafting rules, perhaps a full blown Gish class, instead of the plethora of subclasses that seem to be rather controversial, most of them, just to name a few.

I'll probably buy the book, but all in all it's a bit disappointing, more because of what isn't there, than because of what is.


----------



## Enevhar Aldarion (Oct 22, 2017)

I think it is funny that people are getting so worked up over 4 whole subclasses from another book being reprinted in this, while I see no one getting all upset of all the spells being reprinted from the FREE Elemental Evil Player's Guide.

Also, I am guessing that a lot of the people upset about the name lists are old-timers when it comes to gaming? Unfortunately for those of us that describes, 5E books are aimed just as much at new gamers as at old gamers, maybe even more. Sure, the lists may not be useful when doing things in advance, but for someone new to gaming, who has maybe never had to sit at a table before, trying to think up a name for their new character, it is very helpful to them being able to flip through a few pages and scan lists of names for one they like.


----------



## dropbear8mybaby (Oct 22, 2017)

Enevhar Aldarion said:


> Also, I am guessing that a lot of the people upset about the name lists are old-timers when it comes to gaming?




Thirty years and I'll use the list.


----------



## guachi (Oct 22, 2017)

Oddly, the day before this table of contents was posted I had need of a meme and stumbled upon the great Fantasy Name Generator  site. Really good.

Also, my old D&D Gazetteers had names in then (very appropriate there) and most/all had the list in a smaller font and it only took up part of a page. It's like they realized it'd be wasting space to make it larger. Further, if you put the names in columnar format you should be able to fit hundreds of names on a page. We'd better get lots and lots of names.

That being said, the internet is still a better place to get names as you can get context for how names are actually created rather then randomly picking things from a list. 

Lastly, if you actually want real authentic accurate names that are easy to find, I recommend going to websites for a country's Congress or Parliament and lifting names from that.


----------



## tuxedoraptor (Oct 22, 2017)

The ONE thing that really bums me out is the lack of new sorcerer origins. Sorcs haven't seen any play in my group because they feel that the dragon bloodline is just so good even without houserules so a fire immune enemy doesn't leave them sitting there, twiddling their thumbs. I really would have liked to see the phoenix sorcerer and sea sorcerer make it in. The sea sorcerer looks very broken and earth sorcerer looks unique.


----------



## dropbear8mybaby (Oct 22, 2017)

tuxedoraptor said:


> The ONE thing that really bums me out is the lack of new sorcerer origins.




There are two new ones. How is that a "lack"?


----------



## gyor (Oct 22, 2017)

dropbear8mybaby said:


> There are two new ones. How is that a "lack"?




 I think a lot of us we're expecting 3-5 new options and ended up with 2.

 Honestly I was shocked that none of Phoenix,  Sea,  or Stone made it as they seemed pretty popular,  a bit Phoenix needed some fixes. 

 Yet Shadow which seemed the least popular Sorceror (although it was my second favourite) got in,  while the big elemental three didn't.


----------



## gyor (Oct 22, 2017)

Enevhar Aldarion said:


> I think it is funny that people are getting so worked up over 4 whole subclasses from another book being reprinted in this, while I see no one getting all upset of all the spells being reprinted from the FREE Elemental Evil Player's Guide.
> 
> Also, I am guessing that a lot of the people upset about the name lists are old-timers when it comes to gaming? Unfortunately for those of us that describes, 5E books are aimed just as much at new gamers as at old gamers, maybe even more. Sure, the lists may not be useful when doing things in advance, but for someone new to gaming, who has maybe never had to sit at a table before, trying to think up a name for their new character, it is very helpful to them being able to flip through a few pages and scan lists of names for one they like.




 That doesn't bother me because WotC never made money on those spells,  and not that investment is finally paying off.


----------



## Mistwell (Oct 22, 2017)

martinlochsen said:


> There are so many things people seem to be asking for in the forums around the net, and none of that is in the book. Rules on psionics, better crafting rules,




Uh, there is a section on crafting rules. What makes you think it's not better crafting rules?



> perhaps a full blown Gish class, instead of the plethora of subclasses that seem to be rather controversial, most of them, just to name a few.




I don't think sub-classes are controversial. There seems to be demand for them


----------



## gyor (Oct 22, 2017)

Mistwell said:


> Uh, there is a section on crafting rules. What makes you think it's not better crafting rules?
> 
> 
> 
> I don't think sub-classes are controversial. There seems to be demand for them




 A couple like the Hexblade might be controversial, but most aren't.


----------



## Guest 6801328 (Oct 22, 2017)

gyor said:


> I think a lot of us we're expecting 3-5 new options and ended up with 2.
> 
> Honestly I was shocked that none of Phoenix,  Sea,  or Stone made it as they *seemed pretty popular*,  a bit Phoenix needed some fixes.
> 
> Yet Shadow which *seemed the least popular* Sorceror (although it was my second favourite) got in,  while the big elemental three didn't.




What are you using for data?  Hasn't MM be saying (or at least implying) that they relied heavily on the results of the polls?

FWIW, I also liked the Phoenix a lot, and I only liked about 5-6 of the options across all classes.


----------



## gyor (Oct 22, 2017)

WayOfTheFourElements said:


> Personally, I would love to see some international pricing on D&D Beyond. $50 is half of what the average family lives on where I am, and shipping from Amazon is about $16 alone. It isn't restrictive for me, but I know that not one of my players will ever buy a single book; the price is too restrictive. Until then, they will continue to pirate everything. Unless they can afford to buy the books, they'll find the content for free, anyway, and are happily looking forward the release of XGtE.




 This is why WotC is foolish for not offering a cheaper PDF option.


----------



## martinlochsen (Oct 22, 2017)

Mistwell said:


> Uh, there is a section on crafting rules. What makes you think it's not better crafting rules?




Sorry, I just missed that one. Those where just random examples drawn out of a hat.



Mistwell said:


> I don't think sub-classes are controversial. There seems to be demand for them




Yeah, I didn't mean subclasses in general were controversial. I was probably a bit imprecise there. What I meant was that a lot of people seem to be unhappy with those spesific sublcasses that mixes martial and arcane concepts, the sword mage archetype. I think many of these people would be more happy with a new class that was intended for this purpose from the start, as the design space in available in the subclasses is limited. That's all.


----------



## ddaley (Oct 22, 2017)

Erdric Dragin said:


> $50 for not even 200 pages? We had $30 books back in 3e with 250+ pages...what gives?




Yeah.  I am only ordering 2 copies of it.  Oh, and I pre-ordered it on D&D Beyond as well.  Might end up ordering it for Fantasy Grounds too... if the character options look good.


----------



## Li Shenron (Oct 22, 2017)

It's not really about having those names lists, it's about having 18 pages of them... almost 10% of the book.

Together with random tables, they are the kind of thing that makes more sense as a free web enhancement, or make it a paid web enhancement if you think it should not be free. Put them into a book with this level of page count, and it starts feeling like a page tax for getting the real content.


----------



## Guest 6801328 (Oct 22, 2017)

Li Shenron said:


> It's not really about having those names lists, it's about having 18 pages of them... almost 10% of the book.
> 
> Together with random tables, they are the kind of thing that makes more sense as a free web enhancement, or make it a paid web enhancement if you think it should not be free. Put them into a book with this level of page count, and it starts feeling like a page tax for getting the real content.




While I'm not griping about the book's contents, I also will cede that if things like random tables and name lists were offered as free PDFs I would feel more warm & fuzzy about buying their books.


----------



## Parmandur (Oct 22, 2017)

The lack of premade wandering monster tables was probably the most glaring thing missing from the DMG/MM, in mind: we got guidelines on how to make them, but actual tables are super nice to have.

As to a gosh class, it always strikes me that we already have that, and have since the White Box: Cleric, wears armor and wields weapons, has magic. Arcane/Divine isn't really a mechanical divide in 5E, just make a War Cleric and reflavor it as a sword mage. Barring that, a Paladin, perhaps.


----------



## Parmandur (Oct 22, 2017)

gyor said:


> I think a lot of us we're expecting 3-5 new options and ended up with 2.
> 
> Honestly I was shocked that none of Phoenix,  Sea,  or Stone made it as they seemed pretty popular,  a bit Phoenix needed some fixes.
> 
> Yet Shadow which seemed the least popular Sorceror (although it was my second favourite) got in,  while the big elemental three didn't.



Personally could have done with 10 or more New Sorcerer subclasses, so much room for expansion there. But, "popular" on the forums ≠ popular in the surveys, or the other way around. They went with surveys, maybe we'll see them reworked someday.


----------



## gyor (Oct 22, 2017)

Personally I'd have combined the Sea (changed to Kraken),  Phoenix,  and Stone (renamed Terraque), into one Mythic Beast Origin.


----------



## Mercule (Oct 22, 2017)

Psikerlord# said:


> I think there's some great GM stuff in here. The lists of names are invaluable for improvising imo, all in one spot, no need to google it and sift through the dross, etc.



http://www.fantasynamegenerators.com/

Not knocking anyone who wants it in print. Just providing a bookmark-able link to put it all in one spot . I've found that site to be reasonably good. I don't like any singular list of names, as there's some aesthetic sense to it (I've found that the gender of Japanese names sounds backwards to my group and I, so we don't use them appropriately). But, this is where I say that a list of names in a book is a casualty of the Internet age. It's really the sort of tool that I'd kind of expect DDB to add to their suite independent of anything WotC publishes. 

Having a published list has the implication that anything Curse does either needs to be limited to just these lists or segregated from them, somehow. Come to think of it, the same could be said for the random wilderness encounter tables, though I think that's something that Curse should turn into a "create your own list" tool, using the XGtE lists as formal samples. If someone isn't planning on using DDB, then it's a non-issue because lists like what I linked exist and are easy enough to add to your toolbox.

Maybe I'm working from a false assumption, though, that all GMs have a folder of bookmarks (or equivalent) to a variety of resources to help them during play and/or prep.


----------



## Demetrios1453 (Oct 22, 2017)

gyor said:


> Personally I'd have combined the Sea (changed to Kraken),  Phoenix,  and Stone (renamed Terraque), into one Mythic Beast Origin.




Well, as others have mentioned, there were some real balance issues with them, so many they weren't able to balance them as easily as the others and get them ready in time. Or perhaps they are holding them back for a later book with an elemental theme  (as has been pointed out, they would fit great in a settings book that covers Dark Sun).

I'm also sure this won't be the last official release for subclasses. There will be at least one more book with a large amount (I'd imagine the release with the Mystic and Artificer will have some extra subclasses, for example), and perhaps a few releases with smaller numbers. There are still a good amount of fantasy archetypes out there to be covered.


----------



## Tales and Chronicles (Oct 22, 2017)

I've preordered the book and I'm sure I'll appreciate the content in the end. The only thing that saddens me is the feeling that they went a little too safe with the subclasses. Its probably because subclasses dont offer enough space to drastically affect the way a class play, but I would have liked something more exotic. Mind you, I love concepts like Urban Druids, self-morphing sorcerers, alchemical-enchanced fighter and the likes. Maybe next time, until then I'll have real fun playing an Arcane Archer who can tie knots.


----------



## DM Howard (Oct 22, 2017)

I'm looking forward to this book, but I would agree that I was hoping it would have more than this.


----------



## Satyrn (Oct 22, 2017)

martinlochsen said:


> I play a lot with teenagers, and you know what? They don't go to the internet to find names. They use the ones in PHB (the most popular one is the elven name "Faen", which means Satan in norwegian and is a commonly used swear word, naturally). I have no idea why. They're supposed to be "digital natives" and all that, and they spend most of their lives online. Still, that's the way of it. I'm sure they are going to look at the lists of names in XG, and say "Wow, cool! New names to choose from!".




Aye. I've taken to naming my characters that way, too.


----------



## reelo (Oct 22, 2017)

guachi said:


> Then I saw all the names at the back. I'm an Arabic linguist. I'm sure the butchering of Arabic names will make me cry. Of course, the names already get butchered in the attempted transliteration into the Roman alphabet every day here on Earth. I wonder if they'll eliminate the overtly religious names referencing Allah that won't really make sense in a fantasy context.
> 
> If I had known they were adding names I could have given them hundreds of Arabic names along with rough meanings of the names.




Good to know. My wife is Algerian-French, so she has an arabic name (Hayet). We have a big book of arabic names (for babies) and there's still plenty of them that don't reference Allah directly. (Though if you also eliminate his 99 other names, it's getting more difficult) I've had 2 semesters of islamic studies at University (I've studied archaeology of the middle east) but I hardly know any arabic. Can decipher the script but don't know what it means, more often than not. :-D I'm in a strange place, I love the culture, the people and the food, but as a staunch atheist, I really don't like religion. But it's interesting nonetheless. I'm glad I've been to Saudi-Arabia *before* it started getting too dangerous for westerners in that general area.

/Offtopic

Sent from my Nexus 6P using EN World mobile app


----------



## guachi (Oct 22, 2017)

Parmandur said:


> As to a gosh class




Typo, but a gosh class would be fun. With the subclasses of golly and gee-willikers!


----------



## guachi (Oct 22, 2017)

reelo said:


> Good to know. My wife is Algerian-French, so she has an arabic name (Hayet). We have a big book of arabic names (for babies) and there's still plenty of them that don't reference Allah directly. (Though if you also eliminate his 99 other names, it's getting more difficult) I've had 2 semesters of islamic studies at University (I've studied archaeology of the middle east) but I hardly know any arabic. Can decipher the script but don't know what it means, more often than not. :-D I'm in a strange place, I love the culture, the people and the food, but as a staunch atheist, I really don't like religion. But it's interesting nonetheless. I'm glad I've been to Saudi-Arabia *before* it started getting too dangerous for westerners in that general area.
> 
> /Offtopic
> 
> Sent from my Nexus 6P using EN World mobile app




Even eliminating the obviously religious names  referencing Allah (basically anything 'Abd-al-<something>) and the names related to historical Islamic religious figures like Muhammad you're still left with lots of names. When I was in Arabic class our teachers gave us to choose from that conveniently eliminated the aforementioned names (school policy, though they didn't come out and say it). 

It's unfortunate that the Arabic list probably was assembled by someone who has no real clue about Arabic. Lots of players would probably be interested in the (rough) meaning of the names, especially female names which have a greater tendency to be actual words. E.g, Hayat means "life" and would be a fun name for a Life Cleric!

Name a Knight Faris. Cuz, like, Faris means Knight! And it's a name!
Name a Fighter Muharib. Cuz, like, Muharib means Warrior! And it's a name! (I've never actually encountered anyone called Muharib. But it *is* a name).

If they are going to fill 17 pages with names, there either better be a *lot* of names or they need some kind of value added material like telling you how names are formed in various cultures or telling you what the name means.


----------



## Parmandur (Oct 22, 2017)

Mercule said:


> http://www.fantasynamegenerators.com/
> 
> Not knocking anyone who wants it in print. Just providing a bookmark-able link to put it all in one spot . I've found that site to be reasonably good. I don't like any singular list of names, as there's some aesthetic sense to it (I've found that the gender of Japanese names sounds backwards to my group and I, so we don't use them appropriately). But, this is where I say that a list of names in a book is a casualty of the Internet age. It's really the sort of tool that I'd kind of expect DDB to add to their suite independent of anything WotC publishes.
> 
> ...



D&D is analog time for me: might do a touch of research in prep, but certainly not digital resources in play. Pencil, paper, my imagination: though the latter appreciates help from a book.


----------



## Tia Nadiezja (Oct 22, 2017)

We have now reached the culmination of the negative effects of Adventurer's League's stupid insistence on limiting character creation options (folks, it's Fifth Edition, if it ain't broke by itself you ain't gonna break it giving it interactions, and if you do it'll be easier to spot-ban). We now have the equivalent to Magic reprinting cards to keep them in Standard going on in D&D, except that it doesn't come with another actual physical copy of the card for me to put in my deck with new art that I might like better.

Adventurer's League is kinda godawful.


----------



## dropbear8mybaby (Oct 22, 2017)

Mercule said:


> http://www.fantasynamegenerators.com/



I hate that site. It makes the worst names. It's incredibly ugly, clunky and uses very simplistic algorithms that just mash some names taken from various sources together to form random blotches. How it's gained such popularity is beyond me. I always resented that it came up first in every search for a random name generator and actively avoided it.



Mercule said:


> But, this is where I say that a list of names in a book is a casualty of the Internet age. It's really the sort of tool that I'd kind of expect DDB to add to their suite independent of anything WotC publishes.



I hope that DDB eventually creates a random name generator using the names from the PHB, SCAG, Volo's and Xanathar's. That would actually be cool. Be even cooler if it was based on race with a filter of some type.



Mercule said:


> Having a published list has the implication that anything Curse does either needs to be limited to just these lists or segregated from them, somehow.



I don't understand what you're saying. You know that DDB uses the same site you linked in order to generate random names, right?



Tia Nadiezja said:


> Adventurer's League is kinda godawful.



Like I said previously, like it, hate it, play in it or don't, AL has played a significant role in expanding the hobby, which benefits us all.


----------



## Tia Nadiezja (Oct 22, 2017)

dropbear8mybaby said:


> Like I said previously, like it, hate it, play in it or don't, AL has played a significant role in expanding the hobby, which benefits us all.




Yes. Yes, it has, because it exists as an organized play thing for D&D when D&D itself is the best game it's ever been. It would be BETTER at that if it didn't make tons of boneheaded decisions because apparently restricting options for players is seen as a virtue among its leadership.

And now those boneheaded decisions are infecting printed product used by non-AL players, too. That's bad. That's really, really bad. I no longer have the option of not playing, and thus not being affected by the decisions of, Adventurer's League. I get to live with them in the product I buy.

Seriously. We get one printed rules supplement a year, one book of stuff we're not playtesting and just get to sit down and use. Reprints, especially of stuff in the most recent book, shouldn't be necessary, but AL's restrict-first philosophy makes them so, and that sucks for everyone.


----------



## Superchunk77 (Oct 22, 2017)

Very glad I cancelled my pre-order of this book. Even the Amazon price is high for the amount of reprinted and questionable filler material in this tome.


----------



## Guest 6801328 (Oct 22, 2017)

Tia Nadiezja said:


> Yes. Yes, it has, because it exists as an organized play thing for D&D when D&D itself is the best game it's ever been. It would be BETTER at that if it didn't make tons of boneheaded decisions because apparently restricting options for players is seen as a virtue among its leadership.
> 
> And now those boneheaded decisions are infecting printed product used by non-AL players, too. That's bad. That's really, really bad. I no longer have the option of not playing, and thus not being affected by the decisions of, Adventurer's League. I get to live with them in the product I buy.
> 
> Seriously. We get one printed rules supplement a year, one book of stuff we're not playtesting and just get to sit down and use. Reprints, especially of stuff in the most recent book, shouldn't be necessary, but AL's restrict-first philosophy makes them so, and that sucks for everyone.




If you're not playing AL you can literally use _ANY_ UA, DM's guild, or other 3rd party homebrew that you can find.  Or just make your own.  All you gotta do is persuade your DM.  And if you _are_ the DM then it's even easier.  What on earth are you griping about?

Personally, even though I play about 50% AL, I'm glad they are not releasing more options.  Seriously.  I do not believe that "more" equals "better".  Often it means worse.  So I don't find it boneheaded, and I don't find it "bad" or "really, really bad".  I find it good.  I find it to be judicious curation of an excellent product, which I greatly prefer to an endless stream of poorly conceived splatbooks.  

It really is possible that they are trying to maintain the quality of their product rather than milking their customer base for every penny.


----------



## Parmandur (Oct 22, 2017)

Tia Nadiezja said:


> Yes. Yes, it has, because it exists as an organized play thing for D&D when D&D itself is the best game it's ever been. It would be BETTER at that if it didn't make tons of boneheaded decisions because apparently restricting options for players is seen as a virtue among its leadership.
> 
> And now those boneheaded decisions are infecting printed product used by non-AL players, too. That's bad. That's really, really bad. I no longer have the option of not playing, and thus not being affected by the decisions of, Adventurer's League. I get to live with them in the product I buy.
> 
> Seriously. We get one printed rules supplement a year, one book of stuff we're not playtesting and just get to sit down and use. Reprints, especially of stuff in the most recent book, shouldn't be necessary, but AL's restrict-first philosophy makes them so, and that sucks for everyone.



They aren't reprinting anything from Volo's Guide. Two pages from a two year old product that many people wouldn't have bought...small potatoes.

If the PHB +1 is working to grow the game, that's for the good.


----------



## gyor (Oct 22, 2017)

I'm glad people are starting to realize how bad the PHB +1 rule is in practice. It's a rule designed for previous editions where material did not go through the public pay testing 5e material does,  does not have 5e's bounded accuracy,  produced material at rates in orders of magnitude higher then 5e does. 

 It causes all kinds of problems,  like the weird fact that a Drow and Trifling can become Oath of the Crown Paladins,  but an Aasimar can't,  in effect defacto restoring racial class restrictions when the artificer and mystic come on line. 

 And recycling subclasses now. 

 The AL rule of PHB +1 is based on the ghosts of editions passed,  none on 5e, but 5e is the one that deal with it.


----------



## gyor (Oct 22, 2017)

Parmandur said:


> They aren't reprinting anything from Volo's Guide. Two pages from a two year old product that many people wouldn't have bought...small potatoes.
> 
> If the PHB +1 is working to grow the game, that's for the good.




 There is no evidence that the PHB +1 is helping to grow the game. Yes 5e is popular,  but corellation isn't causation.


----------



## gyor (Oct 22, 2017)

Thought better of my comment,  too conscending.


----------



## Parmandur (Oct 23, 2017)

gyor said:


> There is no evidence that the PHB +1 is helping to grow the game. Yes 5e is popular,  but corellation isn't causation.



The WotC folks keep saying they have evidence it is helping the AL grow: see no reason to doubt it.


----------



## Guest 6801328 (Oct 23, 2017)

Parmandur said:


> The WotC folks keep saying they have evidence it is helping the AL grow: *see no reason to doubt it*.




Ah, Grasshoppa, that's because their claims don't conflict with your unshakeable conviction in an alternate truth.


----------



## Parmandur (Oct 23, 2017)

Elfcrusher said:


> Ah, Grasshoppa, that's because their claims don't conflict with your unshakeable conviction in an alternate truth.



I can see being frustrated with the rule, but that doesn't mean it isn't helpful for organized play.


----------



## Tia Nadiezja (Oct 23, 2017)

Parmandur said:


> The WotC folks keep saying they have evidence it is helping the AL grow: see no reason to doubt it.




They have no control group. I can definitely see it working better than the previous, even more absurd "story origin" rule, but they haven't actually tried "let people make the character they want."


----------



## Guest 6801328 (Oct 23, 2017)

Tia Nadiezja said:


> They have no control group. I can definitely see it working better than the previous, even more absurd "story origin" rule, but they haven't actually tried "let people make the character they want."




You have no idea what evidence they do or do not have, or what they have or have not tried.

I swear sometimes it's impossible to have a rational debate.


----------



## DM Howard (Oct 23, 2017)

Elfcrusher said:


> Ah, Grasshoppa, that's because their claims don't conflict with your unshakeable conviction in an alternate truth.




I agree with the essence of what you are saying, but what would be the aim, from WotC's business perspective to fabricate that conclusion and/or exaggerate it?  I have no idea if AL is helping to grow the D&D community, but i will say that it is keeping D&D in the public's (gaming public's) eye.  Sure, there may be 1,000 D&D games going on in my area, but due to the (seemingly inherent) insular nature of many D&D groups either because of secret club syndrome or playing in private places are not visible to potential new players.  So, only 2,500 of those games (AL games, mostly) are out there to be noticed by the gaming public.  I'd say that's worth a few pages of reprinted material, I simply wish the book was beefier overall.


----------



## Tia Nadiezja (Oct 23, 2017)

Elfcrusher said:


> You have no idea what evidence they do or do not have, or what they have or have not tried.
> 
> I swear sometimes it's impossible to have a rational debate.



'Cept, y'know, I do know what they've tried, because what they've tried has been tried publicly. They can't try things like this privately; you don't know how they work until you let them loose in the wild.

We all know what they've tried, because we've watched it.


----------



## Guest 6801328 (Oct 23, 2017)

Tia Nadiezja said:


> 'Cept, y'know, I do know what they've tried, because what they've tried has been tried publicly. They can't try things like this privately; you don't know how they work until you let them loose in the wild.
> 
> We all know what they've tried, because we've watched it.




So are you concluding that they are lying?  What would be their motive for doing that?


----------



## Tia Nadiezja (Oct 23, 2017)

Elfcrusher said:


> So are you concluding that they are lying?  What would be their motive for doing that?




Nope. I'm concluding that their data isn't meaningful, because it's built on assumptions that wouldn't pan out at a larger scale. I don't think they're lying - I think WotC's folks are great people! I just think they're wrong.


----------



## Guest 6801328 (Oct 23, 2017)

Tia Nadiezja said:


> Nope. I'm concluding that their data isn't meaningful, because it's built on assumptions that wouldn't pan out at a larger scale. I don't think they're lying - I think WotC's folks are great people! I just think they're wrong.




Amazing.


----------



## Remathilis (Oct 23, 2017)

Tia Nadiezja said:


> They have no control group. I can definitely see it working better than the previous, even more absurd "story origin" rule, but they haven't actually tried "let people make the character they want."



They don't have to; they only need look at the bloated mess Pathfinder Society is to see where it leads. Paizo ended up in an arms race with the min/maxers so that thier APs are downright impossible unless you have a tweaked out PC or a forgiving GM. It's so bad Paizo added a "core book only" option so that newer or casual players can play a human ranger and not be blown out of the water by a Dayborn dhampyr kinslayer Inquisitor/holy vindicator.


----------



## R_Chance (Oct 23, 2017)

Tia Nadiezja said:


> Nope. I'm concluding that their data isn't meaningful, because it's built on assumptions that wouldn't pan out at a larger scale. I don't think they're lying - I think WotC's folks are great people! I just think they're wrong.




This argument is getting confusing to those of us on the outside (of AL).

So, you're assuming they are "wrong" because their data "isn't meaningful" and is "built on assumptions that wouldn't pan out at a larger scale". You know what their data is? Because if you don't doesn't that make your argument... circular and wrong? Kind of they are wrong because their data is bad and their data is bad because they are wrong? Or am I missing something here? Is their data public? Are their data collection methods and sources (all of them) known? Do you have access to their methodology, sources and data sets? If so, then you are in a position to say something factual and accurate about it, if not you are providing informed speculation based on you own evidence and assumptions. 

I'm curious.


----------



## Guest 6801328 (Oct 23, 2017)

R_Chance said:


> This argument is getting confusing to those of us on the outside (of AL).
> 
> So, you're assuming they are "wrong" because their data "isn't meaningful" and is "built on assumptions that wouldn't pan out at a larger scale". You know what their data is? Because if you don't doesn't that make your argument... circular and wrong? Kind of they are wrong because their data is bad and their data is bad because they are wrong? Or am I missing something here? Is their data public? Are their data collection methods and sources (all of them) known? Do you have access to their methodology, sources and data sets? If so, then you are in a position to say something factual and accurate about it, if not you are providing informed speculation based on you own evidence and assumptions.
> 
> I'm curious.




Hush, you!  He isn't _just_ a random gamer on the internet, he also knows everything about running a business and is omniscient about what information WotC might be basing their decision on.


----------



## Waller (Oct 23, 2017)

Elfcrusher said:


> Amazing.




It's perfectly rational. If you're measuring whether specific elements are growing the overall population, you can't test the alternatives secretly, by definition. And if you're not controlling for alternatives, the best you can get is a correlation, not a causation.

The statement "core +1 is growing  the player base" cannot be logically made. The closest valid statement is "we've been using core +1 and the player base is growing".


----------



## dropbear8mybaby (Oct 23, 2017)

Tia Nadiezja said:


> Nope. I'm concluding that their data isn't meaningful, because it's built on assumptions that wouldn't pan out at a larger scale. I don't think they're lying - I think WotC's folks are great people! I just think they're wrong.




It's more meaningful than your lack of data.


----------



## Guest 6801328 (Oct 23, 2017)

Corrosive said:


> It's perfectly rational. If you're measuring whether specific elements are growing the overall population, you can't test the alternatives secretly, by definition. And if you're not controlling for alternatives, the best you can get is a correlation, not a causation.
> 
> The statement "core +1 is growing  the player base" cannot be logically made. The closest valid statement is "we've been using core +1 and the player base is growing".




I agree that, given those assumptions, the conclusion is logical.  If their _only_ evidence is the AL numbers, then yeah.  But what none of us know is what the "evidence" of which they speak is.


----------



## Mistwell (Oct 23, 2017)

martinlochsen said:


> Sorry, I just missed that one. Those where just random examples drawn out of a hat.
> 
> 
> 
> Yeah, I didn't mean subclasses in general were controversial. I was probably a bit imprecise there. What I meant was that a lot of people seem to be unhappy with those spesific sublcasses that mixes martial and arcane concepts, the sword mage archetype. I think many of these people would be more happy with a new class that was intended for this purpose from the start, as the design space in available in the subclasses is limited. That's all.




Disregarding the name you'd prefer, what exactly would you want this gish to do, that one of the existing classes/sub-classes doesn't already for the most part accomplish?


----------



## Enevhar Aldarion (Oct 23, 2017)

I feel sorry for all the home gamers sitting in a darkened room, building a character from core and two or more other sourcebooks, fearing every knock at the door is the +1 Police come to take their D&D Player Permit away.


----------



## Waller (Oct 23, 2017)

Elfcrusher said:


> I agree that, given those assumptions, the conclusion is logical.  If their _only_ evidence is the AL numbers, then yeah.  But what none of us know is what the "evidence" of which they speak is.




Evidence of what, though? Evidence that the player base is growing? Sure, we can stipulate to that for the sake of argument. Evidence that a particular policy _caused_ that growth? That isn't logically possible, for the reasons above.  Not without an equal control group, which would by definition be equally visible to us (otherwise the conclusion would not be valid, as they wouldn't be comparing like for like). It's not a hypothesis that can logically be tested in secret.


----------



## Mistwell (Oct 23, 2017)

Tia Nadiezja said:


> They have no control group. I can definitely see it working better than the previous, even more absurd "story origin" rule, but they haven't actually tried "let people make the character they want."




They gather feedback from people who play and DM Adventure's League and apparently people have reported liking the rule. That's some evidence. It's not conclusive evidence, but it's not meaningless either.


----------



## Guest 6801328 (Oct 23, 2017)

Mistwell said:


> They gather feedback from people who play and DM Adventure's League and apparently people have reported liking the rule. That's some evidence. It's not conclusive evidence, but it's not meaningless either.




No, that's not allowed.  That would mean _they_ have evidence that we forum lurkers do not have, and that would clearly be violating....something.


----------



## Tia Nadiezja (Oct 23, 2017)

Elfcrusher said:


> No, that's not allowed.  That would mean _they_ have evidence that we forum lurkers do not have, and that would clearly be violating....something.




I'm not saying they don't have evidence that people like the rule. Of course people like the rule! There's people here insulting me and misgendering me just to defend it. I'm saying they don't have evidence that this rule works better in the wild than just letting people make the characters they want to make. We know they don't have that evidence because we would be able to see them gathering that evidence.

And I don't care how people play in their home groups. I don't even care how they play in Adventurer's League. I do care that we have gotten a grand total of two player-focused rules supplements since this edition launched, and the way that AL has chosen to restrict character creation forced the reprinting of information from the first in the second. THAT is what I care about. AL, being D&D's organized play system, cannot exist without impacting people's home games as well. And the fact that AL has picked a terrible way to restrict the characters people in it can create and play has now wasted pagecount and time in a book I'm very much looking forward to, in order to do the D&D equivalent of "keeping things in Standard" in Magic. It's annoying to open a pack of Ixalan and get a copy of a card I've already got four copies of from each of the last four blocks, and it's BEYOND annoying to see the already-slow production of player-focused rules content for 5e get clogged up with reprints to feed AL's pointless, restrictionist philosophy.

Someone pointed out earlier in the thread that PHB+1 does ridiculous things like cut Aasimar off from Paladin subclasses that feel particularly suited to the race. Bladesingers can't use Elf racial feats. _This is absurd._ And now its absurdity is infecting my play, at home, away from AL, costing me content that I ought to get in a book I'm paying for.

And _they have no actual evidence that restrictionism works better in the wild in this edition_, because they have not tested it.


----------



## Guest 6801328 (Oct 23, 2017)

Tia Nadiezja said:


> I'm not saying they don't have evidence that people like the rule. Of course people like the rule! There's people here insulting me and misgendering me just to defend it. I'm saying they don't have evidence that this rule works better in the wild than just letting people make the characters they want to make. We know they don't have that evidence because we would be able to see them gathering that evidence.
> 
> And I don't care how people play in their home groups. I don't even care how they play in Adventurer's League. I do care that we have gotten a grand total of two player-focused rules supplements since this edition launched, and the way that AL has chosen to restrict character creation forced the reprinting of information from the first in the second. THAT is what I care about. AL, being D&D's organized play system, cannot exist without impacting people's home games as well. And the fact that AL has picked a terrible way to restrict the characters people in it can create and play has now wasted pagecount and time in a book I'm very much looking forward to, in order to do the D&D equivalent of "keeping things in Standard" in Magic. It's annoying to open a pack of Ixalan and get a copy of a card I've already got four copies of from each of the last four blocks, and it's BEYOND annoying to see the already-slow production of player-focused rules content for 5e get clogged up with reprints to feed AL's pointless, restrictionist philosophy.
> 
> Someone pointed out earlier in the thread that PHB+1 does ridiculous things like cut Aasimar off from Paladin subclasses that feel particularly suited to the race. Bladesingers can't use Elf racial feats. _This is absurd._ And now its absurdity is infecting my play, at home, away from AL, costing me content that I ought to get in a book I'm paying for.




Oh, you mean you don't like their decision.  That's cool.  You have a right to that opinion.


> And _they have no actual evidence that restrictionism works better in the wild in this edition_, because they have not tested it.




Oh, I see, you have to have evidence of it working "in the wild" to be convinced.  Well, Auntie, if that's where you want to set your threshold I guess you'll just have to seethe.  Doesn't sound like fun to me.


----------



## Tia Nadiezja (Oct 23, 2017)

Yep. I don't like it. That... I thought was obvious. But before the Adventurer's League's restrictionist approach was a thing that I could simply ignore if I wasn't playing AL. Now, it's getting into one of the very, very few player-focused supplements we've gotten, and that makes it a significant issue regardless of my interest in AL play (which was nonzero - I'd likely do AL if they weren't restrictionist).


----------



## Guest 6801328 (Oct 23, 2017)

Tia Nadiezja said:


> Yep. I don't like it. That... I thought was obvious. But before the Adventurer's League's restrictionist approach was a thing that I could simply ignore if I wasn't playing AL. Now, it's getting into one of the very, very few player-focused supplements we've gotten, and that makes it a significant issue regardless of my interest in AL play




I don't understand.  How is this impinging on your game?



> (which was nonzero - I'd likely do AL if they weren't restrictionist).




And what's that about?  Taking a principled stand, or just that you can't play the exact build you want?


----------



## Tia Nadiezja (Oct 23, 2017)

Elfcrusher said:


> I don't understand.  How is this impinging on your game?




Oh, if you read my posts you'll see
I've been waiting for so long
For another book to read
And add things to my game
But 'cause AL's got this silly rule, you see,
To make things work out there
They've got to reprint rules, you see
And waste pagespace I'd like to use
For something new
For my players
At my game
At my house
Far awaaaaaaaaaaay from them!

I'm a terrible poet, but that's been my focus my entire time in this thread. AL's PHB+1 rule means that if WotC wants people in organized play to be able to use an old rule (say, a subclass) with a new rule (say, a feat), they have to reprint the subclass in the supplement the feat's in. We seem to only get one player-focused printed supplement every two years or so; burning space in them on reprints, especially at the price point they're at (that, I'll note, I'll willingly pay because 5e is a _really good game_, which is part of why I dislike the PHB+1 rule in and of itself), is a significant cost to people's home games.

That's why I'm upset by this. AL wants to be restrictionist, okay, I'll not play AL, and while that might bug me I'm not going to come on the forums and gripe about it. AL's restrictions changing how WotC prints books in a way that costs me potential content? Yeah, that'll draw complaints.


----------



## Tia Nadiezja (Oct 23, 2017)

Elfcrusher said:


> And what's that about?  Taking a principled stand, or just that you can't play the exact build you want?




I've got limited entertainment time, even more limited time for tabletop RPGs, and even more limited than that time as a player. In 5e, cutting options off from one another doesn't cut off "builds," it cuts of concepts - options, in 5e, are big broad things that all say to you, "This is what I do; this is what I say about your character, this is who you're playing if you choose me." And, quite frankly, if I'm going to spend my very limited time as a player at a game, I'm going to play the concept I want to play. So... it's both. Needless restrictions on players is bad, AL normalizing doing so is worse, AND I'm not going to play a game if I can't play the character I'm inspired to play.


----------



## Guest 6801328 (Oct 23, 2017)

Tia Nadiezja said:


> Oh, if you read my posts you'll see
> I've been waiting for so long
> For another book to read
> And add things to my game
> ...




So...seriously?  You're this upset simply because you wanted Xanathar's to be bigger?  

You don't play AL so why do you even care?  There are countless homebrews floating around.  You can use all the UAs, including the ones that didn't make it into the book.  DM's guild has oodles of subclasses (and feats, and races, and spells, and weapons) and they are all waaaaaay cheaper than WotC books.

I think what this all really about (for all the gripers) is that we're all D&D addicts, and we love new stuff, and we get frustrated when that desire isn't fed.  Some people just handle disappointment in...weird ways.


----------



## Guest 6801328 (Oct 23, 2017)

Tia Nadiezja said:


> I've got limited entertainment time, even more limited time for tabletop RPGs, and even more limited than that time as a player. In 5e, cutting options off from one another doesn't cut off "builds," it cuts of concepts - options, in 5e, are big broad things that all say to you, "This is what I do; this is what I say about your character, this is who you're playing if you choose me." And, quite frankly, if I'm going to spend my very limited time as a player at a game, I'm going to play the concept I want to play. So... it's both. Needless restrictions on players is bad, AL normalizing doing so is worse, AND I'm not going to play a game if I can't play the character I'm inspired to play.




So....what's a concept that you can't play within AL rules?


----------



## FitzTheRuke (Oct 23, 2017)

Not that I want to add fuel to this fire, but we don't even have any evidence that those reprinted subclasses are reprinted because of AL.  As far as I can see, that's entirely speculation. They could have had any number of reasons to do it.

Personally, I like it. It's only a few pages and it means I can leave a book (one that's mostly fluff anyway) on the shelf and still have easy access to a few extra subclasses.

I also know quite a few people who don't have SCAG who will be thrilled to have Xanathar's.


----------



## pemerton (Oct 23, 2017)

Gladius Legis said:


> Feats are a direct mechanical benefit to your character. They are useful by definition.
> 
> Names are ... of no benefit whatsoever. Hence, useless.



Huh? If my character had no name, then no NPC could address him/her! ("Hey, you there" doesn't really count.)

To my eye, the most outrageous thing on that table of contents is a separate rules entry for tying knots! Seriously? Now we need rules for whistling, and maybe for getting dressed. (Oh, wait, we already have a chart for that.)

As far as reprints go - there's a fine tradition of that in D&D publishing, going back to the DDG reprinting Appendix IV of the AD&D PHB.


----------



## Connorsrpg (Oct 23, 2017)

Actually looking fwd to the info on Downtime myself.
Rivals looks interesting, but I also wish there was a 'Contacts/Allies' section too.


----------



## Connorsrpg (Oct 23, 2017)

Ooh, and Coastal Encounters... that should come in handy for my new game


----------



## martinlochsen (Oct 23, 2017)

Mistwell said:


> Disregarding the name you'd prefer, what exactly would you want this gish to do, that one of the existing classes/sub-classes doesn't already for the most part accomplish?




I'm sorry sir, I'm not going to be drawn into that discussion. I know you got your torpedoes locked and loaded and you're ready and eager to fire, because you've been in this discussion oh so many times before. You know it all by rote. But that is my point. If something keeps coming up, it's something someone feels passionately about, and there seems to me to be a great number of such things - content that certain players feel really passionately about, and have been hoping to see in print.

You're getting hung up on the random examples I chose. My point is that these things, that certain people really want, don't turn up. I'm not interested in discussing whether players are justified or not in wanting some feature to be added to the game. In my opinion, they have that justification by default. If they feel it's lacking, then it is lacking, for them.

So, what I really want to discuss here, is not if we already have a good gish or not. That would be derailing the thread. The question I want to ask is if Wizards, despite doing surveys and asking peoples opinions, might still be loosing touch with their fans (or at least a portion of them), because they are asking the wrong questions?

And again, I think the book looks fine, I'm not trying to bash it.


----------



## Enevhar Aldarion (Oct 23, 2017)

FitzTheRuke said:


> Not that I want to add fuel to this fire, but we don't even have any evidence that those reprinted subclasses are reprinted because of AL.  As far as I can see, that's entirely speculation. They could have had any number of reasons to do it.
> 
> Personally, I like it. It's only a few pages and it means I can leave a book (one that's mostly fluff anyway) on the shelf and still have easy access to a few extra subclasses.
> 
> I also know quite a few people who don't have SCAG who will be thrilled to have Xanathar's.




They have specifically said that the subclasses that are being reprinted are in there because they are both popular and are sufficiently non-Realms enough to include in a book that is non-Realms on its own. Despite the name of a Realms NPC being in the title, this book is meant to be not specific to one world.


----------



## Lylandra (Oct 23, 2017)

While I understand the basic idea behind the PHB +1 in AL (which is at least partially to minimize the whole "oh, I KNOW this spell must be in PGtF... no, it was in CA... no wait, Spell Compendium!" madness we had in 3.x and therefore to keep the game easy and flowing), I think it is an outdated concept to assume that the majority of players plays with a pile of books besides them.

From my own games, players tend to use the SRD (when playing PF) or just do a quick write-up of their PC's abilities on a sheet. I check them up for possible mistakes and then they're okay to be used as reference. And with D&D beyond on the horizon, I don't understand why they would want to keep the rule because an online compendium is up to date and can be easily configured to allow an "official AL legal" mode.


----------



## Li Shenron (Oct 23, 2017)

Mistwell said:


> They gather feedback from people who play and DM Adventure's League and apparently people have reported liking the rule. That's some evidence. It's not conclusive evidence, but it's not meaningless either.




Is this really true?

Because if AL players actually like the PHB+1 rule, why are they breaking (or create a shortcut to partially avoid some restrictions) it by reprinting stuff from one book to another?

The choice of reprinted subclasses makes little sense with respect to the PHB+1 rule. Crawford has confirmed to multiple people that they were chosen because they are the _most popular_, and I take it for granted that this is true. But there is no special synergy between those 4 subclasses and the new material in XGE that actually gives a strong reason why the players of those 4 subclasses should be treated more favorably than players of other subclasses.

Not to mention the possibility (although IMHO that's not the case) that something could be more popular exactly because it's better, which would make it the worst possible choice for bypassing the +1 limitation.

It could be after all a mere marketing ploy... to boost the chances of selling XGE to someone who didn't buy SCAG. But doesn't it also decrease the chances of buying SCAG from someone who is going to buy XGE? I know I didn't buy SCAG because IMHO it had too little to offer to my games, now that it has even less, I am even less likely to ever pick it up.


----------



## UngeheuerLich (Oct 23, 2017)

We afe speaking about maybe 2 pages for 4 extra subclasses. 3 at most.
I am pretty sure name lists had been shorter if the playtest would have gone better for some classes.
I wish wotc would just drop the price to 45 dollars or even 40 to show that since the content is smaller than probably planned, they are willing to drop the price a bit.
Of course only for FLGS. I think wotc is in a pretty good spot to show some good will.


----------



## Charles Rampant (Oct 23, 2017)

I don’t know why, but I’ve read this entire thread. Man, what a glorious rabbit hole! Anyway, I’m rather unduly excited for this book (because I’m a neeeeerd), but I am a little sad that it’s under 200 pages. It’s a good size for a book, don’t get me wrong, but I had hoped for something a little more. The list of stuff looks good – some solid discussion of how to run certain parts of the game, some fun new player options, and some stuff to make character creation easier and more involving. I think that this might see more table time than Volo’s does in practice, just because of that clarifying material in the central chapter, plus the expanded downtime stuff which – if done well and made accessible – might become a favourite page for players. My players were really happy with the idea of (limited) magic item shopping when we tested out the UA, not to mention the other stuff like pit fighting, so I’m hopeful that Wizards iterated it well and can present some material that really helps games out. 

The PHB+1 rule seems like it has totemic importance here right now, like the Warlord class often does. I don’t think it’s that important, to be honest, but I can see why Wizards would use such a rule. I also think that Wizards are going to be reprinting stuff with some regularity this edition – any monster in a non-MM source which appears in an adventure path (such as Volo’s monsters found in ToA) for starters. We should probably remember that this is not done for our benefit – it’s for the benefit of new players, who pick up the game for the first time, and don’t want to have to buy an entire shelf of stuff to get the content that they ‘need’. The monsters are very easy to understand on this front – the way that old adventures would list stuff from three separate monster manuals was really unfriendly, if you think about it – but reprinting four subclasses also makes sense on this front as well. Not so good for me, who owns SCAG (and quite likes it, for the record); _very_ good for Bob and Matilda, who want to buy enough books to start their own imagination-trek, and want to create their own world to do so. 

That said, I don’t disagree with those who feel that they’d prefer those two pages to be new cool stuff. It’s just a series of compromises, and this is one that I don’t mind that much.


----------



## Li Shenron (Oct 23, 2017)

Charles Rampant said:


> We should probably remember that this is not done for our benefit – it’s for the benefit of new players, who pick up the game for the first time, and don’t want to have to buy an entire shelf of stuff to get the content that they ‘need’.




I don't believe this.

New players are the reason why we have had *Basic* since the start, so that people can actually play the game with ZERO books to buy.

If that's not enough, they can buy the PHB.

A "new" player that finds that the PHB with 12 classes, 9 races, 13 backgrounds, and 30+ subclasses are still not enough is a petty pretentious new player... or is not a "new" player at all. In either case, they can buy two books instead of one. So what are the reprints really for? For that _really_ petty pretentious new player who has PHB+SCAG but wants something also from XGE, or has PHB+XGE but wants something also from SCAG? So pratically someone who wants to use 3 books but only buy 2? And to make him save 50$, we are paying a tax? :/

Well, as I said I don't want to believe this, but thinking back at what happened in 3.5 where everybody was asking to be sold again hundreds of prestige classes with little to no changes because they wanted "official updates", maybe I should believe that D&D gamers really like paying taxes.


----------



## guachi (Oct 23, 2017)

We have actual evidence from WotC that PHB+1 is bad for AL and limits characters. The evidence is right there in _Guide to Everything_. They can claim such a rule is growing the game but we didn't have two non-PHB options until SCAG and one of them was a slight, free PDF.

Seems to me that the game was growing quite strongly before AND after the release of the above publications. Now that we have our fourth book after the PHB, what has WotC done? They've eliminated large chunks of two of player options in the the first two books by reprinting the stuff (even free stuff!!!) in _Guide to Everything_. It's  an implicit acknowledgement that WotC believes eliminating and reducing options is bad for the game.


----------



## dropbear8mybaby (Oct 23, 2017)

guachi said:


> We have actual evidence from WotC that PHB+1 is bad for AL and limits characters. The evidence is right there in _Guide to Everything_.




Aliens are real because ketchup!


----------



## Psikerlord# (Oct 23, 2017)

Mercule said:


> http://www.fantasynamegenerators.com/
> 
> Not knocking anyone who wants it in print. Just providing a bookmark-able link to put it all in one spot . I've found that site to be reasonably good. I don't like any singular list of names, as there's some aesthetic sense to it (I've found that the gender of Japanese names sounds backwards to my group and I, so we don't use them appropriately). But, this is where I say that a list of names in a book is a casualty of the Internet age. It's really the sort of tool that I'd kind of expect DDB to add to their suite independent of anything WotC publishes.
> 
> ...




ACtually that's fair enough  - I have a bunch of links bookmarked for quick NPCs etc. What I find though is often the name lists or NPCs etc are too generic - they are suited to my particular world. The thing about these lists - I presume - is that the authors have curated the lists to reflect various Forgotten Realms cultures. 

I assume the random encounter tables will be high magic, on par with FR and 5e in general. Which is fine although not my preference. That's also what you tend to get with online random encounter generators (high magic I mean).


----------



## tuxedoraptor (Oct 23, 2017)

one thing I would kill for is a better damn list of spells. The current spell list in the players handbook is a freaking nightmare to read. Who the heck organizes spells by alphabetical order? It would be much easier to organize them by level, then school, THEN alphabetically. So instead of having to dig through five pages to find cure wounds, I can flip to level one, look for evocation and be done with it.


----------



## gyor (Oct 23, 2017)

dropbear8mybaby said:


> Aliens are real because ketchup!




 Don't joke about that,  it's when you joke about the Ketch Up Aliens that they kidnap you in the darkest hour of night to eat their space fries.


----------



## guachi (Oct 23, 2017)

dropbear8mybaby said:


> Aliens are real because ketchup!




I'm sorry that you're incapable of following an argument and have to respond with pointless inanities. If you can't follow a simple argument, don't bother posting in this thread.


----------



## Guest 6801328 (Oct 23, 2017)

Start off my morning with a mega-response...


FitzTheRuke said:


> I also know quite a few people who don't have SCAG who will be thrilled to have Xanathar's.




Count me in that camp.  I don't own SCAG because it's mostly about a setting I don't like.



pemerton said:


> Huh? If my character had no name, then no NPC could address him/her! ("Hey, you there" doesn't really count.)



The name lists are also useful for DMs improvising NPCs.  Or, heck, creating NPCs in between sessions.



> To my eye, the most outrageous thing on that table of contents is a separate rules entry for tying knots! Seriously? Now we need rules for whistling, and maybe for getting dressed. (Oh, wait, we already have a chart for that.)



I pondered that, too.  Maybe it's not about the knots themselves, but about their uses.  I.e., what skills and what DCs you use to either tie somebody up, or to escape from being tied up?  But, yeah, it seems odd.



martinlochsen said:


> The question I want to ask is if Wizards, despite doing surveys and asking peoples opinions, might still be loosing touch with their fans (or at least a portion of them), because they are asking the wrong questions?




It is absolutely unavoidable that _some_ fans will be disappointed by whatever decision they make.  Me?  I'd be disappointed if they added too many sub-classes overall, and a few specific ones (a couple of which did get through).  I'll be disappointed if Mystic becomes an official class.

The question is: how do we express our disappointment?  Do we say on the forums, "Gee, I really don't like this decision, and here's why.."  Or do we ramp it up and try to offer incontrovertible proof that WotC sucks and we have a right to be apoplectic?  Or do we leave the game entirely?  (Honestly, it should be a or c but never b.) 



Charles Rampant said:


> Anyway, I’m rather unduly excited for this book (because I’m a neeeeerd), but I am a little sad that it’s under 200 pages.




Yeah, me too.  By definition there has never been a supplement with enough pages.  Right?  Every time a supplement comes out the forums light up with complaints about what's missing and what pages were wasted.  Especially when it comes to player options, which are like crack for gamers.  And yet every single time there are posters who are convinced it is because of incompetence, or the rejection of a sub-group of players, or allegiance to Orcus.



guachi said:


> They've eliminated large chunks of two of player options in the the first two books by reprinting the stuff (even free stuff!!!) in _Guide to Everything_. It's  an implicit acknowledgement that WotC believes eliminating and reducing options is bad for the game.




You lost me....how is reprinting the same as "eliminating" stuff.  Unless you mean that they didn't reprint everything, and so the stuff that wasn't reprinted has been eliminated?  

And your conclusion is...strange.  Maybe they are just acknowledging that some of those options are popular, and you shouldn't have to own a source book to a particular setting in order to have access to them?  

But, hey, tinfoil on.



tuxedoraptor said:


> one thing I would kill for is a better damn list of spells. The current spell list in the players handbook is a freaking nightmare to read. Who the heck organizes spells by alphabetical order? It would be much easier to organize them by level, then school, THEN alphabetically. So instead of having to dig through five pages to find cure wounds, I can flip to level one, look for evocation and be done with it.




That's what online spell lists are for, imo.  Google "Grimoire 5e".


----------



## AriochQ (Oct 23, 2017)

http://www.dmsguild.com/product/184660/16000-Medieval-Names

Here are 16,000 medieval names, mostly European.  I am awful at coming up with names on the spot.  Now, I just pick a first letter and find one that sounds right.


----------



## pemerton (Oct 23, 2017)

Elfcrusher said:


> Maybe it's not about the knots themselves, but about their uses.  I.e., what skills and what DCs you use to either tie somebody up, or to escape from being tied up?  But, yeah, it seems odd.



I'm not a 5e GM, and so won't be buying this book. But based on my own experiences as a GM over the decades, I'm more likely to need a quick name list (that has happened from time to time in play) than to need rules for knots (I think it _may _have come up, but I can't actually recall any such occasion at the moment - actually, it came up as a player in a Burning Wheel game when my PC had to loose his horse's tether to try and escape some orcs; the GM set a difficulty without needing to look up a rulebook!).

For what it's worth.


----------



## DEFCON 1 (Oct 23, 2017)

tuxedoraptor said:


> one thing I would kill for is a better damn list of spells. The current spell list in the players handbook is a freaking nightmare to read. Who the heck organizes spells by alphabetical order? It would be much easier to organize them by level, then school, THEN alphabetically. So instead of having to dig through five pages to find cure wounds, I can flip to level one, look for evocation and be done with it.




Heh... so instead of needing to know just how to spell a spell and flip to that page... you want it such that we need to remember every single spell's level *and* school *and* then how to spell it.  And that's supposed to be the easier way to find it?  Yeah, okay.    Anyone know the level and school of _Glibness_ off the top of their head?


----------



## Parmandur (Oct 23, 2017)

Li Shenron said:


> Is this really true?
> 
> Because if AL players actually like the PHB+1 rule, why are they breaking (or create a shortcut to partially avoid some restrictions) it by reprinting stuff from one book to another?
> 
> ...



You hit on the answer in your last paragraph: the reprints for AL are not for experienced players, but for making the AL newbie friendly in marketing terms (a frequently states goal of the WotC team). You have your PHB, and if you want to be Errol Flynn, Sherlock Holmes or Elric...why, look here, kid, there's one single new book to help you in our weekly game.

Reduces "wall of books" syndrome while still growing the game. Might reduce some SCAG sales, but SCAG is primarily for folks who want that world information, so it does nothing to take from it's primary purpose.


----------



## Mercule (Oct 23, 2017)

dropbear8mybaby said:


> I hate that site. It makes the worst names. It's incredibly ugly, clunky and uses very simplistic algorithms that just mash some names taken from various sources together to form random blotches. How it's gained such popularity is beyond me. I always resented that it came up first in every search for a random name generator and actively avoided it.



I can't argue with the aesthetics. It is a bit jarring, visually.

Fortunately, for me, I seem to have a knack for mimicking phonetic patterns. Once I get a feel for a language, I can usually come up with BS words that sound good enough to non-speakers to maintain "immersion". I'm sure I'd drive an actual speaker of the languages nuts, but folks in my groups have treated me as a name generator on multiple occasions. I just need some seeds from which to work.


----------



## Azzy (Oct 23, 2017)

tuxedoraptor said:


> one thing I would kill for is a better damn list of spells. The current spell list in the players handbook is a freaking nightmare to read. Who the heck organizes spells by alphabetical order? It would be much easier to organize them by level, then school, THEN alphabetically. So instead of having to dig through five pages to find cure wounds, I can flip to level one, look for evocation and be done with it.




An alphabetical spell list is FAR more useful to reference during the games. I remember well stumbling through the PHB, and other books) in 2e and prior looking for spell entries. Nope, don't want to go back to that mess.


----------



## Parmandur (Oct 23, 2017)

pemerton said:


> I'm not a 5e GM, and so won't be buying this book. But based on my own experiences as a GM over the decades, I'm more likely to need a quick name list (that has happened from time to time in play) than to need rules for knots (I think it _may _have come up, but I can't actually recall any such occasion at the moment - actually, it came up as a player in a Burning Wheel game when my PC had to loose his horse's tether to try and escape some orcs; the GM set a difficulty without needing to look up a rulebook!).
> 
> For what it's worth.



Two possibilities come to mind: 

Maybe it is a metaphor, and is not about actually tying knots.

Alternatively, maybe Crawford has fielded hundreds or thousands of questions about tying knots as the rule Sage, and felt a need to get something down in writing.


----------



## Parmandur (Oct 23, 2017)

Li Shenron said:


> I don't believe this.
> 
> New players are the reason why we have had *Basic* since the start, so that people can actually play the game with ZERO books to buy.
> 
> ...



It's not just about books to purchase, it's the optics for a new player: too many books can be very off-putting just getting started, causing analysis paralysis. This is a pretty common phenomenon, and one the WotC have talked about constantly for years: hardly surprising that they act on their stated goals and principles.

They also reprint monsters from Volo's Guide in APs, so you don't need VG to run ToA. The pattern is consistent.


----------



## Guest 6801328 (Oct 23, 2017)

DEFCON 1 said:


> Heh... so instead of needing to know just how to spell a spell and flip to that page... you want it such that we need to remember every single spell's level *and* school *and* then how to spell it.  And that's supposed to be the easier way to find it?  Yeah, okay.    Anyone know the level and school of _Glibness_ off the top of their head?




Agreed.  The problem isn't that it's in alphabetical order and it should be in another order, it's that we might want to search for spells using different criteria, and it's a limit of a paper format that we have to pick just one order to print them in.  It's the reason indices were invented.

If they were sorted by level then we'd also need a full alphabetical index.


----------



## Wepwawet (Oct 23, 2017)

Oh no! Damn NO! That's it for me, no more 5E!

How dare they put in there Spanish names and not Portuguese names???

They're very different you know?? Juan/João, Antonio/António, Javier/Xavier, José/José...

At the very least they could have called them Iberian names.


...


Apart from that I like it, lots of new interesting and useful content for players and DMs


----------



## pemerton (Oct 23, 2017)

Parmandur said:


> maybe Crawford has fielded hundreds or thousands of questions about tying knots as the rule Sage, and felt a need to get something down in writing.



Maybe. Perhaps there are all these unsung nautical campaigns going on out there? Or prisoner-taking, followed by escape attempts!

I'm probably being a bit unfair - no doubt they have some reason for including it, and I think I'm the only person who has brought it up in this thread as a target of criticism. It just really stood out to me - I've GMed a _lot_ of gritty fantasy RPGing over the years, in systems with very granular resolution and PC build systems (eg Rolemaster; Burning Wheel) and this has almost never come up. So how can a less-granular, less-gritty system need official rules for it?

But if it will make someone's day, then good luck to them!


----------



## CaddoGSajwod (Oct 23, 2017)

Am I going to buy this book for what it adds to 5e as far as official content goes?  Yes.  Am I at least a little disappointed by what's not included?  Yes.  Honestly, when they first started talking about this book, it sounded like it was going to be 250+ pages.  Less than 200 for over $40 before taxes feels like a bit of rip off.  I'm happy that the book will have great art, but great art alone isn't justification for a higher price tag for a lesser page count.  I'm sorry but I'm not a fan of paying more than $.25/page for my TT books.


----------



## neobolts (Oct 23, 2017)

*What I liked. *I like the looks of XGtE. A lot of the UA material is being collected in one place and cleaned up. This book in going to get a lot of use. I'm hoping the DM section really gives players some direction of what to do with their big piles of gold that are gathering dust.

*What I'm questioning.* I was surprised that Feats for Skills didn't make it. Also, hopefully Revised Ranger or another ranger variant will make it into print someday. I will add my voice to the others saying that a dozen pages of generated names is wasted ink and paper in the internet age.

*My thoughts on this thread.* I've seen some forum-goers weighing in on the DM section adding a bunch of rules. I would think everything in the DM section is optional. I don't play AL, but it that what this is about?...That AL DMs will have to use the knots, downtime, crafting, etc rules?


----------



## Kobold Stew (Oct 23, 2017)

pemerton said:


> To my eye, the most outrageous thing on that table of contents is a separate rules entry for tying knots! Seriously? Now we need rules for whistling, and maybe for getting dressed. (Oh, wait, we already have a chart for that.)




I am firmly Team Pro-Knot. 

Three years ago, I posted a thread about Use Rope in 5e. Given is placement in the TOC, I am hopeful that's what this is -- a tool proficiency in rope.  



pemerton said:


> But if it will make someone's day, then good luck to them!



Thank you.


----------



## Guest 6801328 (Oct 23, 2017)

neobolts said:


> *My thoughts on this thread.* I've seen some forum-goers weighing in on the DM section adding a bunch of rules. I would think everything in the DM section is optional. I don't play AL, but it that what this is about?...That AL DMs will have to use the knots, downtime, crafting, etc rules?




No, I don't think so.

As far as I can tell, what this is about is:
1) The (understandable) disappointment that there aren't more sub-classes, which is being blamed partly on...
2) The inclusion of reprints of sub-classes from SCAG (under the belief that if they hadn't been included, others would have), which they believe was done primarily because of...
3) The AL PHB+1 rule.

Ergo, the only reason there aren't more player options in Xan's is because of AL.  It has absolutely nothing to do with WotC's desire to maintain a quality product. 

Is that about right?

....

I find it hard to muster much sympathy.


----------



## pemerton (Oct 23, 2017)

Kobold Stew said:


> I am firmly Team Pro-Knot.



Well, then, you've cunningly aligned yourself with the _winning_ team!

(Cunning like a kobold - although I'm not sure if you're named (sympathetically) after a stew _for_ or _by_ kobolds, or (antagonistically) after a stew _of_ kobolds.)



Kobold Stew said:


> Thank you.



You're welcome.


----------



## FitzTheRuke (Oct 23, 2017)

Enevhar Aldarion said:


> They have specifically said that the subclasses that are being reprinted are in there because they are both popular and are sufficiently non-Realms enough to include in a book that is non-Realms on its own. Despite the name of a Realms NPC being in the title, this book is meant to be not specific to one world.




Have they? I hadn't heard. So they've even _said_ that they did it for reasons other than AL, and people are still mad at AL for it. Sounds about right.


----------



## jmucchiello (Oct 23, 2017)

I'm curious what the "This is your life" section will add to the game. It doesn't say there are new Backgrounds. But it does add "events" prior to adventuring. I wonder if it is just fluff or if there are mechanical additions there.


----------



## Guest 6801328 (Oct 23, 2017)

jmucchiello said:


> I'm curious what the "This is your life" section will add to the game. It doesn't say there are new Backgrounds. But it does add "events" prior to adventuring. I wonder if it is just fluff or if there are mechanical additions there.




One can only hope that it's about the player, not the character, and is brutally honest.


----------



## Kobold Boots (Oct 23, 2017)

On the discussion about the value of names tables... some folks don’t allow tech near a game table with the game in progress.   

I expect that folks on an online forum will expect to be able to google at a session and tech proliferation in the early 21st century is what it is.  But low tech is only useless if you have access to better.


----------



## Doctor Futurity (Oct 23, 2017)

Looks great (and I like the name lists, btw) but I thought there were going to be a few new classes (like the mystic) in this one?


----------



## Prakriti (Oct 23, 2017)

So how much reprinted content is in _Xanathar's Guide_? 

~4-5 pages of subclasses
~10-14 pages of spells 

37 out of the 77 wizard spells in XG are reprinted from _Princes of the Apocalypse_ (the same spells also appear in the _Elemental Evil Player's Companion_). Every wizard spell from POTA is being reprinted and, based on that, I think we can expect that every other classes' spells will be printed in full as well. Since 3-5 spells tend to fit on a single page, we can expect ~10-14 pages' worth of reprinted spells.

When you subtract 14-19 pages of reprinted material and 20 pages of appendices that many people find useless, _Xanathar's Guide_ is a mere ~155 pages. Ouch. 

Then there's the fact that almost all of the content is taken from UA. Frankly, I don't expect the DM tools to differ all that much from their UA versions, so I feel like I already own a large portion of this book.


----------



## Guest 6801328 (Oct 23, 2017)

(egad!  previously quoted posts deleted.  how does one clear the multi-quote queue?)



Prakriti said:


> So how much reprinted content is in _Xanathar's Guide_?
> 
> ~4-5 pages of subclasses
> ~10-14 pages of spells
> ...




For that matter, the free D&D 5e starter kit includes Fighter, Wizard, Cleric, and Rogue, with one sub-class each.  So I'm starting to feel cheated that they included that material in the PHB.

Really, what they should do to avoid reprinting the UA subclasses is to only print the words that change, and not the original text.  That would squeeze it into fewer pages, to make room for more name lists.


----------



## Jay Verkuilen (Oct 23, 2017)

Elfcrusher said:


> Ergo, the only reason there aren't more player options in Xan's is because of AL.  It has absolutely nothing to do with WotC's desire to maintain a quality product.




"Oh, it's for the AL players". WotC sets the rules for AL. So they could just say "here's a list of things from _Xanthar's_ that's AL-legit and this supersedes the +1 rule". I mean specific beats general, right? 

Like many other people here IMO _Xanthar's_ appears to be shaping up to be filler-heavy at its price point, though not to the level of _SCAG_. _20 pages of character names_? _Volo's_ was also pretty filler-heavy, though at least it had a lot of good monsters and the filler that was there was potentially useful to DMs. If they're going to have repeated content, at least revise it. 

I guess I'll give _Xanthar's_ a look, but increasingly I've been coming to the point that I just don't much care what WotC releases. Recently they seem to be pretty much focused on different electronic formats of the same material and have even been dialing back their releases of APs. In short, being a rentier.


----------



## Prakriti (Oct 23, 2017)

Elfcrusher said:


> For that matter, the free D&D 5e starter kit includes Fighter, Wizard, Cleric, and Rogue, with one sub-class each.  So I'm starting to feel cheated that they included that material in the PHB.



No doubt there are people who actually felt that way. At the very least, owning the Starter Kit probably impacted their decision to buy or not buy a PHB. Giving them a list of the reprinted material, as I've tried to do for _Xanathar's Guide_, would have helped them make a better-informed decision. Belittling them, probably not so much.


----------



## Guest 6801328 (Oct 23, 2017)

Jay Verkuilen said:


> Recently they seem to be pretty much focused on different electronic formats of the same material and have even been dialing back their releases of APs. In short, being a rentier.




What irks me about WotC far more than padded content does is having to pay full price for each separate format.  They are worse than textbook publishers (who themselves are the spawn of Jubilex) in this regard.  I'd love to play around with D&D Beyond but the free content is useless and there is just no #$%&ing way I am going to buy another PHB.


----------



## martinlochsen (Oct 23, 2017)

> The question is: how do we express our disappointment?  Do we say on the forums, "Gee, I really don't like this decision, and here's why.."  Or do we ramp it up and try to offer incontrovertible proof that WotC sucks and we have a right to be apoplectic?  Or do we leave the game entirely?  (Honestly, it should be a or c but never b.)




Well, to be clear. I absolutely agree with this! I never said Wizards suck or anything like that, and if you got that impression, then I have failed badly in my attempts at communication. I was speculating about whether it would be wise of them to reconsider one part of their design strategy. That's very far from claiming people suck, I hope.


----------



## Satyrn (Oct 23, 2017)

Enevhar Aldarion said:


> I feel sorry for all the home gamers sitting in a darkened room, building a character from core and two or more other sourcebooks, fearing every knock at the door is the +1 Police come to take their D&D Player Permit away.




I'm terrified they'll learn I've been playing without a permit!


----------



## dropbear8mybaby (Oct 23, 2017)

guachi said:


> I'm sorry that you're incapable of following an argument and have to respond with pointless inanities. If you can't follow a simple argument, don't bother posting in this thread.




My comment pointed out that you didn't have real evidence, you imagined evidence. Xanathar's isn't proof of anything, therefore your argument is invalid. That I chose to use humour to express that instead of explaining it meant that I was giving you the benefit of the doubt that you could extrapolate my meaning. I guess I shouldn't have expected you to be able to do that. Won't happen again.


----------



## jmucchiello (Oct 23, 2017)

Kobold Boots said:


> On the discussion about the value of names tables... some folks don’t allow tech near a game table with the game in progress.
> 
> I expect that folks on an online forum will expect to be able to google at a session and tech proliferation in the early 21st century is what it is.  But low tech is only useless if you have access to better.




How is the game in progress if you trying to come up with a name? If the DM needs a name, there are million DM tips about generating names ahead of time.


----------



## jmucchiello (Oct 23, 2017)

Actually, on the reprint issue, if they were going to reprint so much of it, why not reprint all it so you only need the one additional book? That would at least have utility.


----------



## Azzy (Oct 24, 2017)

jmucchiello said:


> I'm curious what the "This is your life" section will add to the game. It doesn't say there are new Backgrounds. But it does add "events" prior to adventuring. I wonder if it is just fluff or if there are mechanical additions there.




Likely all fluuf. Part of it (the Life Events) will be similar to the Lifepath of Cyberpunk/Mekton (and similar tools in other games), it can be randomly rolled or chosen by the player to generate a character's backstory. Part of it was previewed here. It'll probably be the same for the character's origin, and such.

It's not a strictly necessary thing, but (judging from my experience with similar tools in other RPGs) it can prove very useful and fun even for experienced players and DMs.


----------



## Kobold Boots (Oct 24, 2017)

jmucchiello said:


> How is the game in progress if you trying to come up with a name? If the DM needs a name, there are million DM tips about generating names ahead of time.




Fair question.  Offering a fair answer in return.  Presuming:

1. You're a DM that doesn't allow tech at the table  AND
2. You're a DM that has problems with names  THEN
3. You allow books at the table AND
4. Your book is open to the names list THEN
5. You are very quick and your game is in progress.

Be well.
-da boots


----------



## jmucchiello (Oct 24, 2017)

Kobold Boots said:


> 1. You're a DM that doesn't allow tech at the table AND
> 2. You're a DM that has problems with names THEN
> 3. You allow books at the table AND
> 4. Your book is open to the names list THEN
> 5. You are very quick and your game is in progress.



1. I don't like tech at the table but if I were DMing, I'd exempt myself from the rule.
2. Most of these DMs make their own lists of names that tie into the world building better that a list of Spanish names.
3. Again, why would the DM not be exempt from a no books policy? 
4. Presumes the book is open.
5. No, what if you have trouble deciding? An online webpage might only give you one name and then indecision cannot slow you down.

So 12 pages of printed names are for the folks who have some anal retentive rules about getting a list of names. Rather than not including them for the other 98% of the population of DMs.

My mileage does vary apparently.


----------



## Azzy (Oct 24, 2017)

jmucchiello said:


> 2. Most of these DMs make their own lists of names that tie into the world building better that a list of Spanish names.




A lot of DMs draw inspiration from real-world cultures. Drawing names fron those real-world cultures would be a better option than making up names (which isn't always the easiest thing to do for some).



> 5. No, what if you have trouble deciding? An online webpage might only give you one name and then indecision cannot slow you down.




Most websites have lists of names, so that's an odd thing to bandy about.



> So 12 pages of printed names are for the folks who have some anal retentive rules about getting a list of names. Rather than not including them for the other 98% of the population of DMs.




I expect that the names are there to go along with the backstory generation that's also included. Sort of like a buffet of character creation options. Sure, it's not going to be useful foe everybody, and won't be as exhaustive as some of those that want something like this would like. However, it will be hand for those that are already using the backstory generation (as the book is already in hand), and for those that don't want to go into searching for name lists and such online—because people do tend to be lazy about things (especially casual and new gamers).


----------



## Guest 6801328 (Oct 24, 2017)

I'm hoping/expecting that the names will be somewhat curated so that the vast majority of them are names that you'll think, "Ooh...that would be useful."  Most of the name lists I've looked at are the opposite: they are exhaustive and un-curated and you end up wading through a lot of chaff.


----------



## Kobold Boots (Oct 24, 2017)

jmucchiello said:


> 1. I don't like tech at the table but if I were DMing, I'd exempt myself from the rule.
> 2. Most of these DMs make their own lists of names that tie into the world building better that a list of Spanish names.
> 3. Again, why would the DM not be exempt from a no books policy?
> 4. Presumes the book is open.
> ...




Nah you're fine.  Here's some thoughts.

On your points one through three, provided that tech was barred from the table I'd choose to lead by example.  The use of names from the real world allows players some feel of familiarity when so much of a fantasy setting can take away from immersion, and when tech is not at the table you need some form of reference material or you run the risk of having to retcon too much after a bad decision and otherwise ruin the experience of what could have been a good night.

On your points four and five there's a logic bomb present.  If the book isn't open then we either have a DM that doesn't need the names list or doesn't need the book in the first place and the argument is moot.  Same with if he or she has trouble deciding.  No reference either online or paper based is going to help that soul.

My reason for initially posting a defense of the names list was simply to provide the majority online forum community with a friendly reminder that not everyone who plays the game is tech literate or wants to google things.  If you don't prep well, your players go on a tangent and you don't have a name handy.. the reference could be handy.  

My personal opinion is that it's a call back to an earlier era where such references were widely printed and included in rulebooks.  I'd not use it and I agree that for me it's a waste of space; but I can't get behind the "speak with your wallet" and "it lowers the value of the book" partly because I know how hard it is to make money on books, partly because if I bitch about 20 bucks for a book, I'd have to seriously curtail my coffee habit or be a hypocrite, and mostly because I've been buying D&D stuff since the mid-eighties and no matter what I've bought it's always been a partial rip off.  Never mind the fact that there's probably at least 20 pages of every rule book I own that I've never read.

Thanks for reading.
The Boots


----------



## doctorbadwolf (Oct 24, 2017)

gyor said:


> Seriously,  Google search elf/dwarf/Indian/Japanese/Chinese/Greek names,  you have tons of names in seconds. You don't have to be good at coming up with names,  you will have hundreds to choose from in seconds.




If that section is anything like the old Gygax’s Book of Names, it will be a lot more than simple lists of names.


----------



## hejtmane (Oct 24, 2017)

Kobold Boots said:


> Nah you're fine.  Here's some thoughts.
> 
> On your points one through three, provided that tech was barred from the table I'd choose to lead by example.  The use of names from the real world allows players some feel of familiarity when so much of a fantasy setting can take away from immersion, and when tech is not at the table you need some form of reference material or you run the risk of having to retcon too much after a bad decision and otherwise ruin the experience of what could have been a good night.
> 
> ...




I think some times people on boards protest to much not realizing we are a tiny tiny % of players; that we have a tendency to over analyze everything from the math to the multiclass to the feats. A lot of the stuff in these books are for the casual guys not the hardcore D&D nerd they proven that with sales. Me personally I bought SCAGS and I knew what I was getting the only part I wanted was the classes and race stuff. The rest of the forgotten realm stuff I did not care about I bought it for what I wanted in the book and got it for cheaper than the list price so i was happy. Then I pre-order the Xanathars and I am buying it mainly for the classes and a couple other things the rest what ever but I am fine i realize that they have more than just what i think should be in the book to cater too and that was the case even back in the 1e days. 

To many people want everything they want or it is not worth it but sorry to say it but they have more than just us D&D nerds to make happy there is a large range to fill and they are doing the best they can to help the general D&D population with what they want.


----------



## jmucchiello (Oct 24, 2017)

Kobold Boots said:


> Nah you're fine.  Here's some thoughts.



My first reaction to this is to say "stop being condescending". On second read I'm less sure you are being condescending but perhaps you aren't aware that what you wrote reads that way. So, something to consider.

I'm not going to continue discussing your list of reasons for 12 pages of a book I want to buy being totally useless to me are somehow a good thing. There is no argument in the world that will make me believe __I__ will ever have any use for these pages. And, being quite selfish, I'm annoyed the pages are there at all. As I said, My mileage does vary from the listed value.


----------



## Gladius Legis (Oct 24, 2017)

DEFCON 1 said:


> Heh... so instead of needing to know just how to spell a spell and flip to that page... you want it such that we need to remember every single spell's level *and* school *and* then how to spell it.  And that's supposed to be the easier way to find it?  Yeah, okay.    Anyone know the level and school of _Glibness_ off the top of their head?




This may surprise you, but plenty of people have stated the spell lists in the PHB are garbage for the reason you are so flippantly mocking for no logical reason. What's SUPPOSED to be used as a quick reference has turned out to be of very limited use as such.

Wizard players, or especially Eldritch Knight and Arcane Trickster players who HAVE to pick spells of a certain school, would greatly appreciate spells being organized by schools so they can quickly narrow down which spells they want, without having to either flip back and forth to the spell description to see if it's of the school they want or looking up external sources.

Beats a stupid list of names, that's for sure.


----------



## Azzy (Oct 24, 2017)

Gladius Legis said:


> This may surprise you, but plenty of people have stated the spell lists in the PHB are garbage for the reason you are so flippantly mocking for no logical reason. What's SUPPOSED to be used as a quick reference has turned out to be of very limited use as such.




They'd be real garbage if they went back to how things were in 2e and prior. That crap was annoying as hell.

Wizard players, or especially Eldritch Knight and Arcane Trickster players who HAVE to pick spells of a certain school, would greatly appreciate spells being organized by schools so they can quickly narrow down which spells they want, without having to either flip back and forth to the spell description to see if it's of the school they want or looking up external sources.[/QUOTE]

Actually, if only the has the spell school in parenthesis after the spell's name (like they did in t EEPC, and now XGtE, that'd be pretty handy. But they did make a nice pdf that addresses that, and even lists spells by school. Here you go.


----------



## Guest 6801328 (Oct 24, 2017)

Gladius Legis said:


> Wizard players, or especially Eldritch Knight and Arcane Trickster players who HAVE to pick spells of a certain school, would greatly appreciate spells being organized by schools so they can quickly narrow down which spells they want, without having to either flip back and forth to the spell description to see if it's of the school they want or looking up external sources.
> 
> Beats a stupid list of names, that's for sure.




Explain how this is supposed to work?  You break the spell list up into separate lists, one for each school?  

I'm imagining I've got an Arcane Trickster, and I think "Great, I can just go the Illusion and Enchantment lists....oh, look, Bless is an Enchantment!  How awesome is that?!??!"

But of course I can't take Bless because it's not a Wizard spell.  So before I select my spell I still have to go the spell lists by class and confirm it's there.  So I haven't really saved any time, and now the spells are organized in a way that might not matter at all to folks who don't really care about which school they are from.

For example, let's say I have Pyrotechnics in my repertoire, but I can't remember the range.  I think, "Well, it sounds like an Evocation" so I go to the Evocation list and...huh, it's not there.  "Hey, anybody know what school Pyrotechnics is?"  "No...use the spell index."  So now I got to the alphabetical spell index, find Pyrotechics and realize it's actually Transmutation.  So first I got to the Transmutation section, and then...at last...I look through that alphabetically for Pyrotechnics....

That can't possibly be what you are describing.  So what _are_ you describing?


----------



## Gladius Legis (Oct 24, 2017)

Elfcrusher said:


> I'm imagining I've got an Arcane Trickster, and I think "Great, I can just go the Illusion and Enchantment lists....oh, look, Bless is an Enchantment!  How awesome is that?!??!"
> 
> But of course I can't take Bless because it's not a Wizard spell.  So before I select my spell I still have to go the spell lists by class and confirm it's there.




Um, the spells are already listed by class in the PHB? You'd list the spells by school within the class lists. Reading comprehension and PHB knowledge. You fail at it.


----------



## cbwjm (Oct 24, 2017)

I do wish they had included the school after each spell in the spell lists, it would make looking through the lists to pick spells from certain schools much easier.


----------



## Yaarel (Oct 24, 2017)

I tend to ignore the Wizard schools. They are less useful for organizing spells. Things that should be Abjuration arent, like Healing. Things that shouldnt be in a school are, and so on.

The way the Cleric class organizes spells by domain, is more helpful thematically.

I wish each spell came with several relevant tags. A character who focuses on ‘Fire’ spells. Done. ‘Plant’ spells, done. ‘Mind’ spells, done. ‘Attack’ spells, ‘Movement’ spells, ‘Protection’ spells, and so on.


----------



## UngeheuerLich (Oct 24, 2017)

Yaarel said:


> I tend to ignore the Wizard schools. They are less useful for organizing spells. Things that should be Abjuration arent, like Healing. Things that shouldnt be in a school are, and so on.
> 
> The way the Cleric class organizes spells by domain, is more helpful thematically.
> 
> I wish each spell came with several relevant tags. A character who focuses on ‘Fire’ spells. Done. ‘Plant’ spells, done. ‘Mind’ spells, done. ‘Attack’ spells, ‘Movement’ spells, ‘Protection’ spells, and so on.




Have you tried the free part of dnd beyond? There you have those tags. You can even look up most spells because they are mostly free.


----------



## Parmandur (Oct 24, 2017)

Gladius Legis said:


> This may surprise you, but plenty of people have stated the spell lists in the PHB are garbage for the reason you are so flippantly mocking for no logical reason. What's SUPPOSED to be used as a quick reference has turned out to be of very limited use as such.
> 
> Wizard players, or especially Eldritch Knight and Arcane Trickster players who HAVE to pick spells of a certain school, would greatly appreciate spells being organized by schools so they can quickly narrow down which spells they want, without having to either flip back and forth to the spell description to see if it's of the school they want or looking up external sources.
> 
> Beats a stupid list of names, that's for sure.



As somebody who often plays spellcasters, alphabetic is the way to go. I have the spells name on my sheet, I don't want to memorize the school, level all that other jazz when I can just flip through to the appropriate page by letter.


----------



## UngeheuerLich (Oct 24, 2017)

I would have loved organzation spells by level first and then name. Since spells are now universally at a certain level, unlike in adnd or 3.x where the same spells had different levels for different casters, you wouldn't have the problem of adnd where you needed to print spells twice in the wizard and cleric list.
So a spells by level organization would not be bad. Since most spells for creatures lists spells known or prepared by level you should be able to easily find them.
For all other cases it is easy to just note the level of spell directly in the monster entry or habe a spell list by name somewhere.


----------



## Richard Lawton (Oct 24, 2017)

Prakriti said:


> This is shaping up to be a very lackluster release. And that low of a page-count makes the $50 price-tag unjustifiable. I'm going to file this one alongside the SCAG as another unfortunate blemish on 5E.




Totally agree, considering most of this is in UA and I am sure discussions will advise what was changed, meaning you can adjust the UA stuff.

Most of the stuff looks very fluff like.


----------



## Yaarel (Oct 24, 2017)

Heh, have all the spells entered into a database, so I can look them up in any order, including nested order. But I havent ‘tagged’ them yet.


----------



## TrippyHippy (Oct 24, 2017)

Could somebody clarify whether the basic Ranger Class will be modified in this book - as I think was mentioned sometime in previous Unearthed Arcana?


----------



## Enevhar Aldarion (Oct 24, 2017)

UngeheuerLich said:


> I would have loved organzation spells by level first and then name. Since spells are now universally at a certain level, unlike in adnd or 3.x where the same spells had different levels for different casters, you wouldn't have the problem of adnd where you needed to print spells twice in the wizard and cleric list.
> So a spells by level organization would not be bad. Since most spells for creatures lists spells known or prepared by level you should be able to easily find them.
> For all other cases it is easy to just note the level of spell directly in the monster entry or habe a spell list by name somewhere.




Picked this posted to reply to, as it was the last one in the thread on the topic, so not aimed at you.  

For all the complainers about this, you apparently missed this that was put out by WotC a year or two ago for the PHB spells:

http://media.wizards.com/2015/downloads/dnd/DnD_SpellLists_1.01.pdf


----------



## Enevhar Aldarion (Oct 24, 2017)

TrippyHippy said:


> Could somebody clarify whether the basic Ranger Class will be modified in this book - as I think was mentioned sometime in previous Unearthed Arcana?




There will be no base class update for the Ranger in this book. This has been said many times by Crawford and Mearls. They have also said that when it is finally ready to put out, it will be done in a way that is free for everyone, since it is considered a part of Core.


----------



## Enevhar Aldarion (Oct 24, 2017)

And now for a third post in a row.   lol

I am surprised that people are treating this as the "major mechanical expansion" book that has been hinted at. I think that is still coming next November and will include the Mystic and Artificer and many more character option than this book contains. There is not enough in this book for it to be "major" in any way.


----------



## cbwjm (Oct 24, 2017)

Yaarel said:


> I tend to ignore the Wizard schools. They are less useful for organizing spells. Things that should be Abjuration arent, like Healing. Things that shouldnt be in a school are, and so on.
> 
> The way the Cleric class organizes spells by domain, is more helpful thematically.
> 
> I wish each spell came with several relevant tags. A character who focuses on ‘Fire’ spells. Done. ‘Plant’ spells, done. ‘Mind’ spells, done. ‘Attack’ spells, ‘Movement’ spells, ‘Protection’ spells, and so on.




I disagree that healing should be abjuration since healing doesn't really seem to fit what abjuration does, which is protect or banish. Healing spells have moved around the schools a lot over editions. Originally necromantic effects (which fits, you're manipulating life energy), moving to conjuration in 3e, and now evocation in 5e (I guess this kind of fits, you're creating healing energy and applying it to a target). They probably didn't want to link something positive (healing) with something that many perceive as negative since I'd say most associate necromancy with the creation of the undead. 

Some tags might be useful, but I think some of those are pretty much self explanatory if you're looking through the lists since anything with fire or flame is likely a fire spell and anything with plant is a plant spell. If you're using a program, being able to type in fire to create a list of spells would be useful, much as UndeheuerLich said in his post following yours.


----------



## Yaarel (Oct 24, 2017)

cbwjm said:


> I disagree that healing should be abjuration since healing doesn't really seem to fit what abjuration does, which is protect or banish. Healing spells have moved around the schools a lot over editions. Originally necromantic effects (which fits, you're manipulating life energy), moving to conjuration in 3e, and now evocation in 5e (I guess this kind of fits, you're creating healing energy and applying it to a target). They probably didn't want to link something positive (healing) with something that many perceive as negative since I'd say most associate necromancy with the creation of the undead.
> 
> Some tags might be useful, but I think some of those are pretty much self explanatory if you're looking through the lists since anything with fire or flame is likely a fire spell and anything with plant is a plant spell. If you're using a program, being able to type in fire to create a list of spells would be useful, much as UndeheuerLich said in his post following yours.




I am cool with healing as ‘evocation’ − literally positive energy from the positive plane, similar to fire energy from the fire elemental plane.

My point was the nine-school system fails to work well. This is especially true when one spell might belong to more than one school. But the schools themselves are less conceptually useful for the systematic organization of spells.

Healing protects from death, to me nothing is more clearly ‘abjuration’. Also it magically removes an injury.

I feel ‘abjuration’ is a useful category, but I might name its tag ‘protection’. I would have it include spells like ‘Mend’ too.


----------



## UngeheuerLich (Oct 24, 2017)

Enevhar Aldarion said:


> Picked this posted to reply to, as it was the last one in the thread on the topic, so not aimed at you.
> 
> For all the complainers about this, you apparently missed this that was put out by WotC a year or two ago for the PHB spells:
> 
> http://media.wizards.com/2015/downloads/dnd/DnD_SpellLists_1.01.pdf



No. That is not what I or we mean. I and we i guess know that link and I (can only speak of me here) now use dndbeyond as you can see in my post above.

We would have appreciated spells listed by level instead of alphabetically. This way you can go theough every level 1 spell and can easily compare their usefulness if you chose spells. If thdy would list which clases they belong to, even better.
I and we know that it has disadvantages too, bit in my opinion not constantly flipping between spell lists per class and spells when chosing a new spell is better. Also finding same level spells close to each other helps. Organizing them by schools would also have advantages, but since non wizards or derivates don't really use schools that is not my preferred solution.
Adnd organized wizard spells by level and cleric spells by level. That was necessary because of different levels for the same spells in different list. That problem does not exist anymore. So it may be time looking at and reconsider old concepts that were dropped because of a concept which was later also dropped.
And since the discussion is about wasted space, as felt by some, there could be an argument that a comprehensive spell list with all previously published spells would habe felt more valuable.
My personal preference would be an abbreviated spell description of spells per level. With school, concentration, ritual tag, maybe healing, summoning etc. Damage, condition and saving throw if appliciable.
I know dndbeyond does this in a better way as you can easily sort spells by each tag, but sometimes habing things offline is faster than using google.

And since using google to look up spells during character creation is easier than googling for names during play, I might even prefer names in the free space. Bit since I bought xgte It is a wash. Or still better with names in the appendix, because i have the other thing already.



Sent from my GT-I9506 using EN World mobile app


----------



## Yaarel (Oct 24, 2017)

On the topic of spell descriptions, I feel ‘concentration’ and ‘ritual’, should be considered spell components, along with ‘verbal’ and ‘somatic’. I would also distinguish between a costly material component that costs ‘gold’ pieces, from a flavorful hodgepodge of materials that an other ‘focus’, such as a wand, can obviate. So, the full array of abbreviated initials would look like this:

*Spell components:* C, V, S, F, G, R


----------



## Charles Rampant (Oct 24, 2017)

For what it’s worth, I think the name lists will be something that I use at the table. I always forget to prepare them ahead of time, and it’s nice to have a list to draw from when it matters. Also, as someone mentioned before this whole spell list discussion started, it makes this a fun book to have open while making characters – you have life paths, extra subclasses, name lists, and, most importantly, _knot rules_, all together in one package. 

I’m curious to see how good the name lists are, to be honest. It could be a good execution, or it could be a terrible one…


----------



## Kobold Boots (Oct 24, 2017)

Hi



jmucchiello said:


> My first reaction to this is to say "stop being condescending". On second read I'm less sure you are being condescending but perhaps you aren't aware that what you wrote reads that way. So, something to consider.




I'm aware that one possible way to read any reply to anyone is through the lens of condescension.  Being fair, I also knew the minute you replied to my point by point with a point by point that it was extremely likely you were heading down that road - just call it experience on the forums.  Regardless, it's my fault for continuing the convo when I should have simply ignored it or blocked you.

I do apologize for contributing to how you took it and helping you feel that way.  However, there's no tone over typing unless you add it, so something to consider.



> I'm not going to continue discussing your list of reasons for 12 pages of a book I want to buy being totally useless to me are somehow a good thing. There is no argument in the world that will make me believe __I__ will ever have any use for these pages. And, being quite selfish, I'm annoyed the pages are there at all. As I said, My mileage does vary from the listed value.




Entirely fair.  

Be well.
Boots


----------



## dropbear8mybaby (Oct 24, 2017)

Charles Rampant said:


> ..._knot rules_...




OH NO! Knot, rules!

I hate them...


----------



## Li Shenron (Oct 24, 2017)

Elfcrusher said:


> Explain how this is supposed to work?  You break the spell list up into separate lists, one for each school?




Go check the the 3e PHBs. They had already learned how to write good spells lists, nobody understood how did they forget it when designing the 5e PHB.


----------



## Li Shenron (Oct 24, 2017)

Enevhar Aldarion said:


> I am surprised that people are treating this as the "major mechanical expansion" book that has been hinted at. I think that is still coming next November and will include the Mystic and Artificer and many more character option than this book contains. There is not enough in this book for it to be "major" in any way.




Indeed.

Buy hey, the 2018 book will indeed be a bigger expansion. Except of course that it will probably have 4 more subclasses reprinted from SCAG and a bunch more reprinted from XGE itself, as well as at least a dozen pages devoted to random hair/eye color or something more exotic like random genders, you know for "new players" that cannot come up with one.


----------



## gyor (Oct 24, 2017)

Kobold Boots said:


> Fair question.  Offering a fair answer in return.  Presuming:
> 
> 1. You're a DM that doesn't allow tech at the table




 This is where you went wrong.


----------



## Guest 6801328 (Oct 24, 2017)

Li Shenron said:


> Go check the the 3e PHBs. They had already learned how to write good spells lists, nobody understood how did they forget it when designing the 5e PHB.




Honestly I don't care enough to go through the trouble of finding 3e books.  I skipped 3rd and 4th editions.


----------



## Guest 6801328 (Oct 24, 2017)

Li Shenron said:


> Buy hey, the 2018 book will indeed be a bigger expansion. Except of course that it will probably have 4 more subclasses reprinted from SCAG and a bunch more reprinted from XGE itself, as well as at least a dozen pages devoted to random hair/eye color or something more exotic like random genders, you know for "new players" that cannot come up with one.




It seems that of all the countless RPGs out there to choose from, you are playing (or, at least, participating in the forums of) one that you intensely dislike....


----------



## Guest 6801328 (Oct 24, 2017)

Gladius Legis said:


> Um, the spells are already listed by class in the PHB? You'd list the spells by school within the class lists.



Ahhhh!  Now I understand.  You just want spell lists sorted in various ways.  You wrote "would greatly appreciate spells being organized by schools" and I thought you were referring to the full list of spell descriptions.



> Reading comprehension and PHB knowledge. You fail at it.



Well, I'd rather occasionally stumble at parsing somebody else's words than be the sort of person who thinks the above retort is witty and appropriate.

Toodles.


----------



## DEFCON 1 (Oct 24, 2017)

Gladius Legis said:


> This may surprise you, but plenty of people have stated the spell lists in the PHB are garbage for the reason you are so flippantly mocking for no logical reason. What's SUPPOSED to be used as a quick reference has turned out to be of very limited use as such.
> 
> Wizard players, or especially Eldritch Knight and Arcane Trickster players who HAVE to pick spells of a certain school, would greatly appreciate spells being organized by schools so they can quickly narrow down which spells they want, without having to either flip back and forth to the spell description to see if it's of the school they want or looking up external sources.
> 
> Beats a stupid list of names, that's for sure.




Okay, I was going to make a snarky response back, but I think I see the issue here.  I thought you were talking about the actual spell section of the book being by level and school, and not just the _spell lists._  Because having the spell section not alphabetical would not by any means make it easier to find the spells you need.

But if having spell lists that list spells by class and level and school would be helpful, you are in luck.  This spell list PDF on the Wizards website has what you what you need.  Yes, you still need to find the actual spell description alphabetically in the PHB, but at least if you wanted the spell lists a different way, you have them.


----------



## Jay Verkuilen (Oct 24, 2017)

Elfcrusher said:


> What irks me about WotC far more than padded content does is having to pay full price for each separate format.  They are worse than textbook publishers (who themselves are the spawn of Jubilex) in this regard.  I'd love to play around with D&D Beyond but the free content is useless and there is just no #$%&ing way I am going to buy another PHB.



I've had to buy another already when the first one fell to bits; the new one is also dubious. I should note that I am not hard on books in general. I still have 2E books I use that are 25 years old and are in decent shape. But I agree with you, they're pushing towards textbook publisher territory. 

In real life I'm a college instructor, so I can absolutely relate to the evil of textbook publishers. I go out of my way to choose inexpensive texts and or PDF readings I can just give to students. I recall teaching a class as a grad student I had taken as an undergrad. The text when I was an undergrad in the early 1990s was the 3rd edition. When I first started teaching the class about 10 years later it was the 4th. OK, that's legit. During the three years I taught it, it had churned to 6th. Last time I checked it was up to the 9th. The material drifted slightly, but this was an intro class, so fundamentally it hasn't changed _that_ much. Most of the material was just rearranged in order. Obviously WotC isn't Pearson or McGraw-Hill and they don't have the kind of power that an instructor has, but they're doing a lot of the same "license the heck out of our existing content" moves.


----------



## Jay Verkuilen (Oct 24, 2017)

Elfcrusher said:


> It seems that of all the countless RPGs out there to choose from, you are playing (or, at least, participating in the forums of) one that you intensely dislike....



I won't speak for anyone else but in many ways I clearly love the game, though there are things I find frustrating. I've played it since the early '80s when I was a kid, off and on. Right now some version of D&D is all I play (a bit frustratedly as I'd like to play some other things). The issue is that one needs to get a group together and D&D is undoubtedly the easiest thing to get together with. 

I don't much like the publisher's behavior. Loving the game isn't loving the publisher. 

I totally recognize that the publisher needs to make money. Some repeated content is OK. In fact, 1E had quite a bit. The _PHB_, _DMG_, etc., all were essentially collections of Dragon articles with some added content. _MM2_ collected a lot of monsters that were in modules already. Content dumping is a problem, too, so I get the desire to avoid doing that. It creates a lot of fratricidal competition and market fragmentation among the publisher's own offerings. What I don't like about the current publication model is that they seem to have done a 180 turn away from publishing nearly anything. No _Dragon_ or _Dungeon_, for instance. Pretty much the entire model is turning towards WotC generating little new content at all and just figuring out how to license what they've already written.


----------



## Parmandur (Oct 24, 2017)

Li Shenron said:


> Go check the the 3e PHBs. They had already learned how to write good spells lists, nobody understood how did they forget it when designing the 5e PHB.



They probably found in surveys that more people prefer straight alphabetical order is Timon: easier to find quickly in play.


----------



## Kobold Boots (Oct 24, 2017)

gyor said:


> This is where you went wrong.




Perhaps so.  But that type of DM does exist.


----------



## Kobold Boots (Oct 24, 2017)

Parmandur said:


> easier to find quickly in play.




Bingo.  It helps game play dramatically and slows down character generation.


----------



## DM Howard (Oct 24, 2017)

Jay Verkuilen said:


> What I don't like about the current publication model is that they seem to have done a 180 turn away from publishing nearly anything. No _Dragon_ or _Dungeon_, for instance. Pretty much the entire model is turning towards WotC generating little new content at all and just figuring out how to license what they've already written.




I'd definitely agree with you here, WoTC has turned into being a brand manager rather than a brand producer.  I'd be very happy with the current release schedule if they put out a _Dungeon_ and _Dragon_ magazine on alternating months, but as it stands they are leaving it to their customers to generate content and taking a nice cut on top of it.  That's brand licensing if I ever saw it.


----------



## jmucchiello (Oct 24, 2017)

Edit: Never mind, they figured it out.


----------



## Guest 6801328 (Oct 24, 2017)

Jay Verkuilen said:


> I won't speak for anyone else but in many ways I clearly love the game, though there are things I find frustrating. I've played it since the early '80s when I was a kid, off and on. Right now some version of D&D is all I play (a bit frustratedly as I'd like to play some other things). The issue is that one needs to get a group together and D&D is undoubtedly the easiest thing to get together with.
> 
> I don't much like the publisher's behavior. Loving the game isn't loving the publisher.
> 
> I totally recognize that the publisher needs to make money. Some repeated content is OK. In fact, 1E had quite a bit. The _PHB_, _DMG_, etc., all were essentially collections of Dragon articles with some added content. _MM2_ collected a lot of monsters that were in modules already. Content dumping is a problem, too, so I get the desire to avoid doing that. It creates a lot of fratricidal competition and market fragmentation among the publisher's own offerings. What I don't like about the current publication model is that they seem to have done a 180 turn away from publishing nearly anything. No _Dragon_ or _Dungeon_, for instance. Pretty much the entire model is turning towards WotC generating little new content at all and just figuring out how to license what they've already written.




Fair 'nuff.


----------



## Parmandur (Oct 24, 2017)

Kobold Boots said:


> Bingo.  It helps game play dramatically and slows down character generation.



Ideally, one spends more time playing characters than building them


----------



## Parmandur (Oct 24, 2017)

Bravesteel said:


> I'd definitely agree with you here, WoTC has turned into being a brand manager rather than a brand producer.  I'd be very happy with the current release schedule if they put out a _Dungeon_ and _Dragon_ magazine on alternating months, but as it stands they are leaving it to their customers to generate content and taking a nice cut on top of it.  That's brand licensing if I ever saw it.



Isn't that largely what Dragon/Dungeon we're, though? Not much different from DMs Guild.


----------



## Parmandur (Oct 24, 2017)

Jay Verkuilen said:


> I won't speak for anyone else but in many ways I clearly love the game, though there are things I find frustrating. I've played it since the early '80s when I was a kid, off and on. Right now some version of D&D is all I play (a bit frustratedly as I'd like to play some other things). The issue is that one needs to get a group together and D&D is undoubtedly the easiest thing to get together with.
> 
> I don't much like the publisher's behavior. Loving the game isn't loving the publisher.
> 
> I totally recognize that the publisher needs to make money. Some repeated content is OK. In fact, 1E had quite a bit. The _PHB_, _DMG_, etc., all were essentially collections of Dragon articles with some added content. _MM2_ collected a lot of monsters that were in modules already. Content dumping is a problem, too, so I get the desire to avoid doing that. It creates a lot of fratricidal competition and market fragmentation among the publisher's own offerings. What I don't like about the current publication model is that they seem to have done a 180 turn away from publishing nearly anything. No _Dragon_ or _Dungeon_, for instance. Pretty much the entire model is turning towards WotC generating little new content at all and just figuring out how to license what they've already written.



One of my favorite parts of their current publication strategy is how little of it they are doing: I've bought as many D&D books this year (2) as I did from the time I started gaming till 2014, and it looks like I will go 50% past that number. I can keep up now, and it's great. A few reprinted pages is no biggie to me.


----------



## Kobold Boots (Oct 24, 2017)

Bravesteel said:


> I'd definitely agree with you here, WoTC has turned into being a brand manager rather than a brand producer.  I'd be very happy with the current release schedule if they put out a _Dungeon_ and _Dragon_ magazine on alternating months, but as it stands they are leaving it to their customers to generate content and taking a nice cut on top of it.  That's brand licensing if I ever saw it.




I agree with the general sentiment of brand licensor vs. content publisher.  However, both magazines (at least in my time) were always about 75/25 or at the least 50/50 fan generated content.  Granted, those fans were rather passionate, well-edited by TSR and put out stellar content if they were published, but it was still fan content.  (ex. 1Ed Unearthed Arcana content all originally saw print in Dragon and was about 40-50% fan content that went through submission and publication)

So, I guess the best thing to say is.. if you don't like Wizards.. carry on as they've got plenty of warts to talk about - but at least recognize that in a system where there's always more fan content then there's ever going to be publisher created content, it wouldn't be wise for Wizards to not try to leverage it.  Not doing so would (eventually) kill the hobby.


----------



## Azzy (Oct 24, 2017)

Enevhar Aldarion said:


> And now for a third post in a row.   lol
> 
> I am surprised that people are treating this as the "major mechanical expansion" book that has been hinted at. I think that is still coming next November and will include the Mystic and Artificer and many more character option than this book contains. There is not enough in this book for it to be "major" in any way.




I'm sorry, but that doesn't seem like sound view. Xanathar's is the major mechanical expansion—new subclasses, feats, spells, downtime expansion, and DM stuff. There's no way that this couldn't be it.


----------



## Guest 6801328 (Oct 24, 2017)

Kobold Boots said:


> I agree with the general sentiment of brand licensor vs. content publisher.  However, both magazines (at least in my time) were always about 75/25 or at the least 50/50 fan generated content.  Granted, those fans were rather passionate, well-edited by TSR and put out stellar content if they were published, but it was still fan content.  (ex. 1Ed Unearthed Arcana content all originally saw print in Dragon and was about 40-50% fan content that went through submission and publication)




A couple years ago I was doing a "crap I don't need anymore" purge, and digging through a box of papers I found a rejection letter from Roger E. Moore, editor of Dragon Magazine in the early 80's, for a submission I sent in.  I was 15 years old.  Good times.


----------



## DM Howard (Oct 24, 2017)

Parmandur said:


> Isn't that largely what Dragon/Dungeon we're, though? Not much different from DMs Guild.






Kobold Boots said:


> I agree with the general sentiment of brand licensor vs. content publisher.  However, both magazines (at least in my time) were always about 75/25 or at the least 50/50 fan generated content.  Granted, those fans were rather passionate, well-edited by TSR and put out stellar content if they were published, but it was still fan content.  (ex. 1Ed Unearthed Arcana content all originally saw print in Dragon and was about 40-50% fan content that went through submission and publication)




I'd agree with what you both are saying, very good points, I guess I'd simply enjoy a Dungeon and/or Dragon format that can cut through the garbage and show me the gems, with all those articles (or what have you) in one place and in one document per month.



Kobold Boots said:


> So, I guess the best thing to say is.. if you don't like Wizards.. carry on as they've got plenty of warts to talk about - but at least recognize that in a system where there's always more fan content then there's ever going to be publisher created content, it wouldn't be wise for Wizards to not try to leverage it.  Not doing so would (eventually) kill the hobby.




I'm certainly a WotC fan, 5E is the best edition, IMO, by far!  I also think there is room for constructive criticism, as a fan and customer, all with the aim of creating a better brand experience for us the customers.


----------



## Li Shenron (Oct 24, 2017)

Elfcrusher said:


> It seems that of all the countless RPGs out there to choose from, you are playing (or, at least, participating in the forums of) one that you intensely dislike....




Mmm... how did I manage to deliver you that idea... D&D is my favourite RPG and 5e is my favourite edition! I love everything in the PHB except the Guidance cantrip... go figure  I just can't stand the idea of 18 pages of names.


----------



## Li Shenron (Oct 24, 2017)

Elfcrusher said:


> Honestly I don't care enough to go through the trouble of finding 3e books.  I skipped 3rd and 4th editions.




Ok no problem. See below why I think there were better tables.



Parmandur said:


> They probably found in surveys that more people prefer straight alphabetical order is Timon: easier to find quickly in play.




Yes that's true, alphabetical is easier. Mostly I was referring to the format and the short description. Maybe that option got lost when they chose the font and layout for 5e books... the 3e core books had a lot more text in a page.


----------



## Jay Verkuilen (Oct 24, 2017)

Parmandur said:


> Isn't that largely what Dragon/Dungeon we're, though? Not much different from DMs Guild.




The problem with DMs Guild is that there's no curation and you have to pay to even see it. _Dragon_ and _Dungeon_ were professionally curated and edited content. A good bit of it was fan-generated or submitted but quite a lot was written by pros. For a long time the content was excellent. Some of DMs Guild is like that but there's a huge amount of wading through content that really isn't and the recommendation engine is not fantastic.


----------



## Jay Verkuilen (Oct 24, 2017)

Bravesteel said:


> I'd agree with what you both are saying, very good points, I guess I'd simply enjoy a Dungeon and/or Dragon format that can cut through the garbage and show me the gems, with all those articles (or what have you) in one place and in one document per month.



Agreed, totally. _Dungeon_ and _Dragon_ were both really useful. I haven't looked at it in a long time but _Dragon+_ was mostly marketing hype or interviews last time I checked. Sad days for what was once a really useful source of game material. 




> I'm certainly a WotC fan, 5E is the best edition, IMO, by far!  I also think there is room for constructive criticism, as a fan and customer, all with the aim of creating a better brand experience for us the customers.




IMO my favorite "edition" is my house ruled 2E but 5E is solid. I also agree that constructive criticism is relevant. My options are exit or voice. I've been pushed more towards exit by virtue of WotC not releasing much content that I actually want, but for a lot of reasons I'd really prefer to use their content over third parties, unless I'm playing something like Cubicle 7's _Adventures in Middle Earth_ where the 5E ruleset is being used for a different game. They seem to spend most of their effort on hyping their limited releases rather than generating content, so I'm not sure I'd call myself a fan. I have been a loyal customer for years though, but now mostly what I get isn't even close to what I want so they don't get much $$$ anymore. (No I don't want a return to the excessive release grind.)


----------



## Kobold Boots (Oct 24, 2017)

Going slightly off-topic here.

Do folks think there's a market for a fanzine in the light of the old Dragon mag?  I thought there were other D&D things out there other than Dragon and Dungeon?  (Gygax mag rings a bell.) edit - Gygax has been learned to be dead.  Kobold Quarterly too.  Damn.

-KB.


----------



## Jay Verkuilen (Oct 24, 2017)

Bravesteel said:


> I'd definitely agree with you here, WoTC has turned into being a brand manager rather than a brand producer.  I'd be very happy with the current release schedule if they put out a _Dungeon_ and _Dragon_ magazine on alternating months, but as it stands they are leaving it to their customers to generate content and taking a nice cut on top of it.  That's brand licensing if I ever saw it.



Absolutely, they've pretty much just become a rentier, spending most of their efforts on social media marketing and licensing. I guess that makes business sense, but it's mostly cashing in on contrived scarcity. 

If I recall right, _Dragon_ was monthly and _Dungeon_ was bimonthly. Some of the adventures in _Dungeon_ were really, really good and material originally written for _Dragon_ represented a useful testbed for content. Ideally _DMs Guild_ would do this, but there's just way too much to wade through, IMO.


----------



## Azzy (Oct 24, 2017)

Li Shenron said:


> Mostly I was referring to the format and the short description.




3e pretty much had the best spell list presentation of the editions. Could use a bit of tweaking, but was pretty good.


----------



## Balfore (Oct 24, 2017)

ninjayeti said:


> I guess "Xanthar's Guide to Stuff You Could Have Just Googled" didn't test well with the focus groups.



Too funny!

Sent from my SM-N910V using Tapatalk


----------



## DM Howard (Oct 24, 2017)

Kobold Boots said:


> Going slightly off-topic here.
> 
> Do folks think there's a market for a fanzine in the light of the old Dragon mag?  I thought there were other D&D things out there other than Dragon and Dungeon?  (Gygax mag rings a bell.)
> 
> -KB.




I think there is. The problem with the Gygax Mag, IMO, is that you could only purchase it in paper format (Not sure on that though!) and the magazine was more of a general roleplaying magazine from what I could tell.  

I'd pay good money (~$15 per issue) for a well put together D&D 5E magazine that not only has articles on adventures and player options, but also has other D&D interest articles such as "How to Start a Group" and "10 Ways to Get Your Store to Support D&D" etc.  EN5ider is great, but it is just a collection of material rather than a fully curated magazine with all that entails.


----------



## Satyrn (Oct 24, 2017)

Gladius Legis said:


> Um, the spells are already listed by class in the PHB? You'd list the spells by school within the class lists. Reading comprehension and PHB knowledge. You fail at it.




Oh. Your first post on this subject made it sound like you were talking about the spell descriptions, not the spell lists. And I know I wasn't alone in thinking that because the first several responses you got were clearly about the spell descriptions, too.

Are you sure you want to stand behind your "reading comprehension" comment?


----------



## Satyrn (Oct 24, 2017)

Azzy said:


> 3e pretty much had the best spell list presentation of the editions. Could use a bit of tweaking, but was pretty good.




Aye. It surprised me they didn't use 3e's lists.


----------



## Azzy (Oct 24, 2017)

Bravesteel said:


> I think there is. The problem with the Gygax Mag, IMO, is that you could only purchase it in paper format (Not sure on that though!) and the magazine was more of a general roleplaying magazine from what I could tell.
> 
> I'd pay good money (~$15 per issue) for a well put together D&D 5E magazine that not only has articles on adventures and player options, but also has other D&D interest articles such as "How to Start a Group" and "10 Ways to Get Your Store to Support D&D" etc.  EN5ider is great, but it is just a collection of material rather than a fully curated magazine with all that entails.




If this were to be done, it would probably be best to do this through the DM's Guild so that it could use full access to the full rules (instead of just the SRD) and access to the Realms and Ravenloft. OTOH, you couldn't do anything with the other published settings...


----------



## Parmandur (Oct 24, 2017)

Azzy said:


> I'm sorry, but that doesn't seem like sound view. Xanathar's is the major mechanical expansion—new subclasses, feats, spells, downtime expansion, and DM stuff. There's no way that this couldn't be it.



Yeah, they made that pretty clear: and it is the first major expansion of rules since the game started, both SCAG and Volo's had relatively little rules material, as they had other foci.


----------



## DM Howard (Oct 24, 2017)

Azzy said:


> If this were to be done, it would probably be best to do this through the DM's Guild so that it could use full access to the full rules (instead of just the SRD) and access to the Realms and Ravenloft. OTOH, you couldn't do anything with the other published settings...




True, I don't think I would be too bothered by only being able to use the Realms or Ravenloft, I think you can provide content that can fit a multitude of settings.  Is there anything that prevents someone from putting a "If you want to use this Adventure in [Insert Campaign Setting Here]" type of text box?


----------



## Parmandur (Oct 24, 2017)

Kobold Boots said:


> Going slightly off-topic here.
> 
> Do folks think there's a market for a fanzine in the light of the old Dragon mag?  I thought there were other D&D things out there other than Dragon and Dungeon?  (Gygax mag rings a bell.) edit - Gygax has been learned to be dead.  Kobold Quarterly too.  Damn.
> 
> -KB.



Magazines, as a rule, are dead.


----------



## Parmandur (Oct 24, 2017)

Jay Verkuilen said:


> Absolutely, they've pretty much just become a rentier, spending most of their efforts on social media marketing and licensing. I guess that makes business sense, but it's mostly cashing in on contrived scarcity.
> 
> If I recall right, _Dragon_ was monthly and _Dungeon_ was bimonthly. Some of the adventures in _Dungeon_ were really, really good and material originally written for _Dragon_ represented a useful testbed for content. Ideally _DMs Guild_ would do this, but there's just way too much to wade through, IMO.



WotC has actually been working hard at spotlighting the best Dams Guild products in Dragon+ and social media, particularly the DMs Guild Adepts program.


----------



## Azzy (Oct 24, 2017)

Bravesteel said:


> True, I don't think I would be too bothered by only being able to use the Realms or Ravenloft, I think you can provide content that can fit a multitude of settings.  Is there anything that prevents someone from putting a "If you want to use this Adventure in [Insert Campaign Setting Here]" type of text box?




Unfortunately, I have no idea.


----------



## dropbear8mybaby (Oct 24, 2017)

Kobold Boots said:


> Do folks think there's a market for a fanzine in the light of the old Dragon mag?




No.

People are complaining about the cost of this book. As has been pointed out, RPG material is already grossly underpriced for the amount of work, time and cost of production. To do a decent amount of work every month for the quality of content, layout, art, etc. in those magazines you end up paying people so very little that anyone doing the work is doing it more for name recognition than anything else, all because RPG players aren't willing to pay for it.


----------



## gyor (Oct 24, 2017)

Bravesteel said:


> I'd definitely agree with you here, WoTC has turned into being a brand manager rather than a brand producer.  I'd be very happy with the current release schedule if they put out a _Dungeon_ and _Dragon_ magazine on alternating months, but as it stands they are leaving it to their customers to generate content and taking a nice cut on top of it.  That's brand licensing if I ever saw it.




 They produce just enough content for appearances and then licence deals drive the real D&D business.


----------



## gyor (Oct 24, 2017)

dropbear8mybaby said:


> No.
> 
> People are complaining about the cost of this book. As has been pointed out, RPG material is already grossly underpriced for the amount of work, time and cost of production. To do a decent amount of work every month for the quality of content, layout, art, etc. in those magazines you end up paying people so very little that anyone doing the work is doing it more for name recognition than anything else, all because RPG players aren't willing to pay for it.




 They could start adding more setting building and player content via Dragon + for minimum addiction cost if they sold advertising.


----------



## gyor (Oct 24, 2017)

Parmandur said:


> One of my favorite parts of their current publication strategy is how little of it they are doing: I've bought as many D&D books this year (2) as I did from the time I started gaming till 2014, and it looks like I will go 50% past that number. I can keep up now, and it's great. A few reprinted pages is no biggie to me.




 Would adding 1 setting book per year upset that?

 I would suggest FRCG 2018
 Another setting 2019
 Another setting 2020 and so on. 

 Although I'm realistic enough to know they can't,  they simply din't have the Staff and budget for even the FRCG never mind other settings.


----------



## Parmandur (Oct 24, 2017)

gyor said:


> Would adding 1 setting book per year upset that?
> 
> I would suggest FRCG 2018
> Another setting 2019
> ...



It's not a staffing issue, it's demand: it seems they find greater success mixing setting material with adventures than as specific setting material: make a big sandbox, like OotA, SKT, CoS or ToA, for DMs to expand.

I like setting books, but that doesn't appear to butter the bread. If they had more staff, I doubt they would do a setting book, aside from maybe something like the Magic world art books.


----------



## Kobold Boots (Oct 24, 2017)

I'm guessing the vibe with setting books is that a lot of people don't necessarily have time to home brew an adventure night, but everyone makes time to play if they can.  So the logic then becomes, sell an adventure chain that has a setting.

Speaking from my own experience, I had a big group at a table when I got promoted beyond my capability to do my work and prep adventures, so I ended up buying a lot of the EnWorld adventure lines.  Worked like a charm.


----------



## DM Howard (Oct 24, 2017)

Parmandur said:


> Magazines, as a rule, are dead.




We'll agree to disagree here, I suppose, as I do not think magazines are dead at all.  Newsstands across the world continue to do well on physical magazines and newspapers.  That being said, I think a digital magazine would suit D&D's purposes quite well, but perhaps I am in the minority of RPG players and I am willing to pay what a product is worth.


----------



## Kobold Boots (Oct 24, 2017)

Bravesteel said:


> We'll agree to disagree here, I suppose, as I do not think magazines are dead at all.  Newsstands across the world continue to do well on physical magazines and newspapers.  That being said, I think a digital magazine would suit D&D's purposes quite well, but perhaps I am in the minority of RPG players and I am willing to pay what a product is worth.




Sorry for starting the side thread.  I asked the question because I've made my living as a writer/artist before and find myself without a gaming group.  Therefore the best option for me right now is to develop good content after finishing a deep dive on the rules system.  Asked the question as less of a financial one and more of a demand one as I have no need to sell anything anymore, but I've got a creative itch.

Of course, if you build it and no one reads or uses it .. definition of loss unless your creativity is merit enough.

Thanks for the feedback.


----------



## gyor (Oct 24, 2017)

Back on the topic itself, I've been comparing the contents to the forge cleric prèview,  in order to figure how where the bits of fiction they taked about in the Warmage video would go and it must be in the class intro part.

 Like for example Sorcerors its Sorcerors 48, Sorceror Origins 50, Divine Soul 50, Shadow Magic 50, Storm Sorcery 51.

 So Sorceror on page 48-49 must have the fiction bits,  Sorceror Origins is just an sentance or two like cleric domains, then Divine Soul is most of page 50, with the last bit having the Shadow Sorceror which continues into page 51, with what is left of page 51 to 52 going to the Storm Sorcery.


----------



## gyor (Oct 25, 2017)

Anyone notice how many knightly subclasses there are between Fighter and Paladin? 

 Elderich KNIGHT,  Purple Dragon KNIGHT, Cavalier (which is a type of Knight),  and Samurai is like a Japanese Knight,  with some differences. All Paladin are concidered Knights, it has Oath of Vengeance (Dark Knight), Oath of Ancients (Green Knight/Feyknight/Hornknight), Oath of Conquest Knights Tyrant/Hell Knights).

 I'm just saying that I think future Fighter subclasses will avoid Knights, they drunk the Knight to the less and being a Knight isn't seen as intrisic to the class, like it is for Paladins.


----------



## gyor (Oct 25, 2017)

Parmandur said:


> It's not a staffing issue, it's demand: it seems they find greater success mixing setting material with adventures than as specific setting material: make a big sandbox, like OotA, SKT, CoS or ToA, for DMs to expand.
> 
> I like setting books, but that doesn't appear to butter the bread. If they had more staff, I doubt they would do a setting book, aside from maybe something like the Magic world art books.




 No,  they don't have the staff for it,  look at how unsatificatory Tomb of Anniliation was as a setting book,  fine adventure,  but it's simply no subsitute for a proper full setting book. 

 But they can't offer more,  you've just to stop taking what WotC says at face value and look at how it acts,  operates,  and what it's been actually doing,  put all the peices together.


----------



## Jay Verkuilen (Oct 25, 2017)

Parmandur said:


> WotC has actually been working hard at spotlighting the best Dams Guild products in Dragon+ and social media, particularly the DMs Guild Adepts program.



Well that intrigued me so I looked through _Dragon+_. It just seems like a long aggregation of WotC press releases and ads for their social media content and podcasts, which I'm really not interested in wading through to find a few hidden gems. I did see the list of people in the Guild Adept Program, and I'll check out what they wrote---I have seen Monica Valentinelli's work before and she's good---but of course, there's this little gem found here: _If you want to get involved, there is no time like the present. While there is no sure-fire recipe for becoming a GUILD ADEPT, the best way to get our attention is to A) play in our sandbox and explore creative expansion to storylines that D&D is releasing; ..._ My possibly erroneous translation is: "Add to our storylines or we don't really care." Am I missing something? Once I got into the issues there appear to be a bit more substance than just WotC press releases and more links to their web page, but only a bit, nothing like the old _Dragon_. They do have nice featured modules, which is worthwhile. 

DMs Guild not having print on demand is another issue. Things that are electronic only just never seem to get used at the table, except maybe some monsters, and having to print everything myself means I would walk around with stacks of highly non-durable printouts. There will be a few sample pages but that's not really enough to get a solid feel for the material. It feels like microtransactions or going to a tapas restaurant, meanwhile WotC takes its cut for doing nothing along the way. Then there's the issue of substantial opposition towards third party content, particularly for character options (archetypes, spells, etc.), a point I can very much understand. 

Am I just getting old and, more broadly, tired of the social media hype and constant cross-marketing? Probably. You kids get off my lawn!!!!


----------



## Jay Verkuilen (Oct 25, 2017)

Parmandur said:


> It's not a staffing issue, it's demand: it seems they find greater success mixing setting material with adventures than as specific setting material: make a big sandbox, like OotA, SKT, CoS or ToA, for DMs to expand.




Seems like they're running through print runs just fine or more than fine: https://www.newyorker.com/culture/cultural-comment/the-uncanny-resurrection-of-dungeons-and-dragons 

But the issue with demand is that they don't actually know what would sell the other way because they don't provide anything but APs.


----------



## Parmandur (Oct 25, 2017)

gyor said:


> No,  they don't have the staff for it,  look at how unsatificatory Tomb of Anniliation was as a setting book,  fine adventure,  but it's simply no subsitute for a proper full setting book.
> 
> But they can't offer more,  you've just to stop taking what WotC says at face value and look at how it acts,  operates,  and what it's been actually doing,  put all the peices together.



They seem to have no problem putting together three books a year: really see no reason to engage in conjecture of what is "really happening" when a perfectly reasonable explanation has been provided consistently for many years now.


----------



## Parmandur (Oct 25, 2017)

gyor said:


> Anyone notice how many knightly subclasses there are between Fighter and Paladin?
> 
> Elderich KNIGHT,  Purple Dragon KNIGHT, Cavalier (which is a type of Knight),  and Samurai is like a Japanese Knight,  with some differences. All Paladin are concidered Knights, it has Oath of Vengeance (Dark Knight), Oath of Ancients (Green Knight/Feyknight/Hornknight), Oath of Conquest Knights Tyrant/Hell Knights).
> 
> I'm just saying that I think future Fighter subclasses will avoid Knights, they drunk the Knight to the less and being a Knight isn't seen as intrisic to the class, like it is for Paladins.



I honestly don't see much room for further Fighter archetypes moving forward, though I'm sure there must be something they could squeeze in.


----------



## Parmandur (Oct 25, 2017)

Jay Verkuilen said:


> Well that intrigued me so I looked through _Dragon+_. It just seems like a long aggregation of WotC press releases and ads for their social media content and podcasts, which I'm really not interested in wading through to find a few hidden gems. I did see the list of people in the Guild Adept Program, and I'll check out what they wrote---I have seen Monica Valentinelli's work before and she's good---but of course, there's this little gem found here: _If you want to get involved, there is no time like the present. While there is no sure-fire recipe for becoming a GUILD ADEPT, the best way to get our attention is to A) play in our sandbox and explore creative expansion to storylines that D&D is releasing; ..._ My possibly erroneous translation is: "Add to our storylines or we don't really care." Am I missing something? Once I got into the issues there appear to be a bit more substance than just WotC press releases and more links to their web page, but only a bit, nothing like the old _Dragon_. They do have nice featured modules, which is worthwhile.
> 
> DMs Guild not having print on demand is another issue. Things that are electronic only just never seem to get used at the table, except maybe some monsters, and having to print everything myself means I would walk around with stacks of highly non-durable printouts. There will be a few sample pages but that's not really enough to get a solid feel for the material. It feels like microtransactions or going to a tapas restaurant, meanwhile WotC takes its cut for doing nothing along the way. Then there's the issue of substantial opposition towards third party content, particularly for character options (archetypes, spells, etc.), a point I can very much understand.
> 
> Am I just getting old and, more broadly, tired of the social media hype and constant cross-marketing? Probably. You kids get off my lawn!!!!



Really, having flipped through some older Dragons/Dungeons...the more things change, the more they stay the same.  Ad copy  and utilizing fan's work.


----------



## Parmandur (Oct 25, 2017)

Jay Verkuilen said:


> Seems like they're running through print runs just fine or more than fine: https://www.newyorker.com/culture/cultural-comment/the-uncanny-resurrection-of-dungeons-and-dragons
> 
> But the issue with demand is that they don't actually know what would sell the other way because they don't provide anything but APs.



They've provided three non-AP books past the core books: Mearls has specifically stated that SCAG won't see any setting book follow-ups, because it works better for people in APs.


----------



## Demetrios1453 (Oct 25, 2017)

Parmandur said:


> They've provided three non-AP books past the core books: Mearls has specifically stated that SCAG won't see any setting book follow-ups, because it works better for people in APs.




Although I wonder if that will be fully true in the future, now that the Spring release isn't going to be a traditional AP as it has been before. I wonder if we'll see some sort of setting/adventure hybrids, something along the lines of SKT and ToA, but with smaller adventure sections, and expanded detail on the "sandbox" around...


----------



## jmucchiello (Oct 25, 2017)

Bravesteel said:


> I think there is. The problem with the Gygax Mag, IMO, is that you could only purchase it in paper format (Not sure on that though!) and the magazine was more of a general roleplaying magazine from what I could tell.
> 
> I'd pay good money (~$15 per issue) for a well put together D&D 5E magazine that not only has articles on adventures and player options, but also has other D&D interest articles such as "How to Start a Group" and "10 Ways to Get Your Store to Support D&D" etc.  EN5ider is great, but it is just a collection of material rather than a fully curated magazine with all that entails.




Aren't there dozens of Youtube channels that give this kind of advice?


----------



## Guest 6801328 (Oct 25, 2017)

The New Yorker article (linked in another thread) sheds some light on who their real market is.  _NOT_ a few score (or even a few hundred) veteran game optimizers.


----------



## Jay Verkuilen (Oct 25, 2017)

Parmandur said:


> Really, having flipped through some older Dragons/Dungeons...the more things change, the more they stay the same.  Ad copy  and utilizing fan's work.



Oh they always had ads and used fan-submitted material. But much of it was quite good and it was edited and curated.


----------



## Jay Verkuilen (Oct 25, 2017)

Parmandur said:


> They've provided three non-AP books past the core books: Mearls has specifically stated that SCAG won't see any setting book follow-ups, because it works better for people in APs.



Yeah, I was a bit hyperbolic there. _Volo's_ is a decent release. Though it's rather front-loaded on fluff, it's still got some valuable and solid monsters. I'm not sure what one can conclude from _SCAG_ given how crummy a product it is. Their heart was definitely not in it, that's for sure. I've played characters with content from _SCAG_ but mostly I just need to Google for the spell descriptions in the event my character sheet notes aren't sufficient. That's how useless it is. 

I guess I'm just a consumer whose preferences are really out of line with what WotC wants to do/believes the market wants. In many respects I wish I didn't love the game that so clearly wants to go in a direction I'm so utterly uninterested in and won't support any other direction meaningfully (particularly with officially released player content, spells, magic items, etc.). APs to me are just... bleh and I don't want to buy their digital offerings either. If I thought I could actually run a game I wanted to, I'd just dump WotC entirely.


----------



## Parmandur (Oct 25, 2017)

Demetrios1453 said:


> Although I wonder if that will be fully true in the future, now that the Spring release isn't going to be a traditional AP as it has been before. I wonder if we'll see some sort of setting/adventure hybrids, something along the lines of SKT and ToA, but with smaller adventure sections, and expanded detail on the "sandbox" around...



It'll be interesting to see what they do, since the three books a year strategy seems pretty set: another reprint, or other material...?


----------



## DM Howard (Oct 25, 2017)

jmucchiello said:


> Aren't there dozens of Youtube channels that give this kind of advice?




Regarding my interest article examples?  Sure, but that doesn't mean I watch them, or that I even watch the best ones.  I'd also be all about WotC  curated YouTube content as well.


----------



## Parmandur (Oct 25, 2017)

Jay Verkuilen said:


> Yeah, I was a bit hyperbolic there. _Volo's_ is a decent release. Though it's rather front-loaded on fluff, it's still got some valuable and solid monsters. I'm not sure what one can conclude from _SCAG_ given how crummy a product it is. Their heart was definitely not in it, that's for sure. I've played characters with content from _SCAG_ but mostly I just need to Google for the spell descriptions in the event my character sheet notes aren't sufficient. That's how useless it is.
> 
> I guess I'm just a consumer whose preferences are really out of line with what WotC wants to do/believes the market wants. In many respects I wish I didn't love the game that so clearly wants to go in a direction I'm so utterly uninterested in and won't support any other direction meaningfully (particularly with officially released player content, spells, magic items, etc.). APs to me are just... bleh and I don't want to buy their digital offerings either. If I thought I could actually run a game I wanted to, I'd just dump WotC entirely.



I actually quite liked SCAG, but I like the FR: lots of great fluff in there, and fluff is just as good as crunch to me.

I've bought every AP except CoS (my Brother in law is running it, so I'm avoiding spoilers for now), and I love them, too. WotC definitely can do wrong, but they really seem to be tailoring their schedule around my interests right now, which is fun.


----------



## cbwjm (Oct 25, 2017)

Parmandur said:


> I actually quite liked SCAG, but I like the FR: lots of great fluff in there, and fluff is just as good as crunch to me.
> 
> I've bought every AP except CoS (my Brother in law is running it, so I'm avoiding spoilers for now), and I love them, too. WotC definitely can do wrong, but they really seem to be tailoring their schedule around my interests right now, which is fun.



I'm the same in regard to SCAG, mechanics is nice and all and I'm not sure I'd buy just a fluff book but I definitely like having all of that information of the gods and locations in there. I think it is a top quality book.


----------



## Parmandur (Oct 25, 2017)

cbwjm said:


> I'm the same in regard to SCAG, mechanics is nice and all and I'm not sure I'd buy just a fluff book but I definitely like having all of that information of the gods and locations in there. I think it is a top quality book.



I ended up likely be Volo's Guide more, but SCAG is very much fun reading for me: I've actively enjoyed reading all the 5E books so far.


----------



## flametitan (Oct 25, 2017)

Parmandur said:


> I ended up likely be Volo's Guide more, but SCAG is very much fun reading for me: I've actively enjoyed reading all the 5E books so far.




As someone who started D&D with 5e, it seems like the SCAG was targeted more at me than at someone like Gyor. It gave me a nice primer to the Forgotten Realms and why I might want to play in it, without being overwhelming in its level of detail.


----------



## Azzy (Oct 25, 2017)

flametitan said:


> As someone who started D&D with 5e, it seems like the SCAG was targeted more at me than at someone like Gyor. It gave me a nice primer to the Forgotten Realms and why I might want to play in it, without being overwhelming in its level of detail.




That's encouraging. Personally, I believe that setting books should cater to new players/players new to the setting rather than players more experienced with the setting, and that the contents should not overwhelm the newbie. For the most part, players with experience in a setting don't need a new setting book—outside of setting-specific mechanics (races, classes, etc.) if any, they can run a campaign using any previous setting materials they have. 

That's why I, as a Greyhawk fan, am not terrible concerned about WotC publishing a Greyhawk setting book—I've got tons of existing setting material to work with. Sure, I'd like some of the setting-specific spells, monsters and what not, but I'm in a far better place mechanically than fans of Eberron, Dark Sun, Dragonlance, Kara-Tur, Al Qadim, etc.


----------



## Parmandur (Oct 25, 2017)

Azzy said:


> That's encouraging. Personally, I believe that setting books should cater to new players/players new to the setting rather than players more experienced with the setting, and that the contents should not overwhelm the newbie. For the most part, players with experience in a setting don't need a new setting book—outside of setting-specific mechanics (races, classes, etc.) if any, they can run a campaign using any previous setting materials they have.
> 
> That's why I, as a Greyhawk fan, am not terrible concerned about WotC publishing a Greyhawk setting book—I've got tons of existing setting material to work with. Sure, I'd like some of the setting-specific spells, monsters and what not, but I'm in a far better place mechanically than fans of Eberron, Dark Sun, Dragonlance, Kara-Tur, Al Qadim, etc.



I got the 1E GH boxed set on Dndclassics, and honestly it's still usable with 5E, or GURPS, or whatever.


----------



## hejtmane (Oct 25, 2017)

flametitan said:


> As someone who started D&D with 5e, it seems like the SCAG was targeted more at me than at someone like Gyor. It gave me a nice primer to the Forgotten Realms and why I might want to play in it, without being overwhelming in its level of detail.




Even us old timers there was no Forgotten Realms in D&D or 1e. All the stuff from 2e to 4e I have no history on and I read very few D&D Novels and the big Novel back in my day was Dragon Lance (Yes I read the initial 6 books). While this is not my first D&D I have no connection to any of the world stuff people talk about


----------



## variant (Oct 25, 2017)

It would be nice if WotC would do another balance release of the content from UA that isn't going to be in Xanathar's Guide. They should never have wasted space by putting reprinted SCAG content in it and instead added a few more subclasses that aren't being printed.


----------



## Yaarel (Oct 25, 2017)

It seems to me, if the design team felt the other subclasses were popular and mechanically ready to go, they would simply have added them to Xan and increased its page count.

If something isnt in Xan, it is because (A) the feedback showed strong interest but was divided making it more difficult for designers to satisfy the majority, or (B) the feedback showed less interest.

If everyone or at least a decisive majority was happy, the Psion and the Ranger classes would have been in Xan too.


----------



## Parmandur (Oct 25, 2017)

Yaarel said:


> It seems to me, if the design team felt the other subclasses were popular and mechanically ready to go, they would simply have added them to Xan and increased its page count.
> 
> If something isnt in Xan, it is because (A) the feedback showed strong interest but was divided making it more difficult for designers to satisfy the majority, or (B) the feedback showed less interest.
> 
> If everyone or at least a decisive majority was happy, the Psion and the Ranger classes would have been in Xan too.



The cut-off was apparently 70% approval in the surveys. Just because something didn't make it now doesn't mean it will never be published...but further iterations are likely.


----------



## Dale Robbins (Oct 25, 2017)

FitzTheRuke said:


> I wonder if the ranger will include some of the revisions?




At the very least, I hope they include a sidebar discussing how to convert a standard ranger archetype to a revised ranger archetype. The method that's been published in UA before now is actually very simple.


----------



## hejtmane (Oct 25, 2017)

variant said:


> It would be nice if WotC would do another balance release of the content from UA that isn't going to be in Xanathar's Guide. They should never have wasted space by putting reprinted SCAG content in it and instead added a few more subclasses that aren't being printed.




That was for AL period they said that and while most people here do not play AL it is part of their promotion and support


----------



## Enevhar Aldarion (Oct 25, 2017)

Jay Verkuilen said:


> Yeah, I was a bit hyperbolic there. _Volo's_ is a decent release. Though it's rather front-loaded on fluff, it's still got some valuable and solid monsters. I'm not sure what one can conclude from _SCAG_ given how crummy a product it is. Their heart was definitely not in it, that's for sure. I've played characters with content from _SCAG_ but mostly I just need to Google for the spell descriptions in the event my character sheet notes aren't sufficient. That's how useless it is.




Most people no longer remember that SCAG and Out of the Abyss were both farmed out to Green Ronin to create, so WotC only published them, but did not write them. Sure, their people had input to make sure things were accurate, but Crawford, Mearls, etc did not write SCAG. And while Green Ronin is a very good company, it not being their property may be why the book seems sub-par to some people.

Personally, I am fine with the book, but not for the retail of $40, which I did not pay anyway. I am actually not fine with the retail price of almost any gaming books these days, so Amazon discounts or a discount from a gaming store is the only way I go for new books.


----------



## Enevhar Aldarion (Oct 25, 2017)

Dale Robbins said:


> At the very least, I hope they include a sidebar discussing how to convert a standard ranger archetype to a revised ranger archetype. The method that's been published in UA before now is actually very simple.




I know in 400+ posts that things can get lost or not seen, but I think earlier in this thread, or was it another thread, I mentioned that Crawford has already said there will be nothing in Xanathar's about the revisions to the Ranger. From what I remember him saying, there will still be another playtest for the Ranger after they put out the next playtests for the Mystic and Artificer, which he stated would not come out before Winter. So maybe January or February before we see more on the revision of the Ranger.


----------



## green_destiny (Oct 25, 2017)

Did the Warlock invocation Kiss of Mephistopheles made the final cut?


----------



## jmucchiello (Oct 25, 2017)

Bravesteel said:


> Regarding my interest article examples?  Sure, but that doesn't mean I watch them, or that I even watch the best ones.  I'd also be all about WotC  curated YouTube content as well.




Or you can just post a thread here asking which are the best Youtube channels that give good DM advice and a bunch of people will point you in a bunch of different directions but the best content will bubble to the top. 

Of course, you can also post a thread here asking for specific DMing advice and you will get better specific advice than a generic article or vid will give you. Given the breadth of knowledge held here and places like here I don't see what value a "curated" generic article has over specific, tailored to you advice.


----------



## gyor (Oct 25, 2017)

Enevhar Aldarion said:


> Most people no longer remember that SCAG and Out of the Abyss were both farmed out to Green Ronin to create, so WotC only published them, but did not write them. Sure, their people had input to make sure things were accurate, but Crawford, Mearls, etc did not write SCAG. And while Green Ronin is a very good company, it not being their property may be why the book seems sub-par to some people.
> 
> Personally, I am fine with the book, but not for the retail of $40, which I did not pay anyway. I am actually not fine with the retail price of almost any gaming books these days, so Amazon discounts or a discount from a gaming store is the only way I go for new books.




 SCAGs issues relate to A)  being too small for it's basic purpose which was as a Setting Guide, B)  the player material didn't get the public play testing that the Subclasses in XGTE got. 

 But VGTMs in some ways is worse because at least the SCAG knows what setting it's supposed to be apart of,  while VGTM suffers from an identity crisis. 

 Is it a general options book or an FR book?  If general options then naming it after Volo is unethical and misleading because that name means something.  If it's FR then a lot of the lore in it, especially the Yuan Ti origins is straight up wrong.  The line is blurred and I don't like that. In FR the Sarrukh created the Yuan Ti not a decadent human snake worshipping empire. 

 Does VGTM want to be a DM book or player book? 

 XGTM looks like it will suffer from similar flaws,  although not to the same degree.


----------



## gyor (Oct 25, 2017)

green_destiny said:


> Did the Warlock invocation Kiss of Mephistopheles made the final cut?




 No way to know yet.


----------



## gyor (Oct 25, 2017)

Parmandur said:


> They seem to have no problem putting together three books a year: really see no reason to engage in conjecture of what is "really happening" when a perfectly reasonable explanation has been provided consistently for many years now.




 17 pages of names is a problem,  it's blantant filler,  having to contract out books like the SCAG to other companies is a problem,  not being able to produce a proper FRCG is a problem,  the fact that they have to mash books together because wise either DMs or Players go without is a problem. 

 So yeah if you shut you eyes of course WotC's words make sense,  as long as you don't actually challenge it.


----------



## gyor (Oct 25, 2017)

Parmandur said:


> I honestly don't see much room for further Fighter archetypes moving forward, though I'm sure there must be something they could squeeze in.




 Lycanthrope,  Vampire,  Wrestler,  Improvised Weapons User. Fighter subclasses that focus in the none combat pillars,  Hopilite or Legionaire,  a divine fighter subclass. 

 Subclasses that specialize in particular weapons.


----------



## Parmandur (Oct 25, 2017)

gyor said:


> SCAGs issues relate to A)  being too small for it's basic purpose which was as a Setting Guide, B)  the player material didn't get the public play testing that the Subclasses in XGTE got.
> 
> But VGTMs in some ways is worse because at least the SCAG knows what setting it's supposed to be apart of,  while VGTM suffers from an identity crisis.
> 
> ...



Volo's is very much a generic book, most if the flavor text even references other settings. It is both DM and player material, because that is the business model, probably assuming that DMs will buy most of the books.


----------



## Guest 6801328 (Oct 25, 2017)

gyor said:


> Lycanthrope,




God no, please.



> Vampire




God no, please.



> Wrestler




I wouldn't mind a strength-based, unarmed melee combatant but it would probably end up under Monk.  (I know a lot of people want "non-supernatural" but I don't think WotC agrees with you.)



> Improvised Weapons User




Subclasses based on a specific weapon or weapon category are not going to happen.. 



> Fighter subclasses that focus in the none combat pillars,




"Focus" is unlikely but strongly flavored might be possible.  But can you give a good example?



> Hopilite or Legionaire




Those are just words.  Can you describe a clear concept.



> a divine fighter subclass.




That's a mechanical description. What's the distinct concept/flavor, and how is it different from Cleric or Paladin?  Do you just mean Eldritch Knight but with Divine rather than Arcane powers?



> Subclasses that specialize in particular weapons.




Not gonna happen.


----------



## Kobold Stew (Oct 25, 2017)

cbwjm said:


> I disagree that healing should be abjuration since healing doesn't really seem to fit what abjuration does, which is protect or banish. Healing spells have moved around the schools a lot over editions. Originally necromantic effects (which fits, you're manipulating life energy),




This is an old hobby-horse of mine, which I know is an unpopular view.. I think healing spells should be necromancy. Doing that removes the necessary association with evil, and clearly groups all the spells dealing with life magic.


----------



## Demetrios1453 (Oct 25, 2017)

gyor said:


> Is it a general options book or an FR book?  If general options then naming it after Volo is unethical and misleading because that name means something.  If it's FR then a lot of the lore in it, especially the Yuan Ti origins is straight up wrong.  The line is blurred and I don't like that. In FR the Sarrukh created the Yuan Ti not a decadent human snake worshipping empire.




Volo is an unreliable narrator from there start, and the book even mentions this fact. And the Sarrukh are a race known only to a few, so to most the origins of the yuan-ti would be clouded in mystery. Volo probably published the latest (incorrect) theories on yuan-ti historical research, which is likely tainted with misinformation from the yuan-ti themselves...



Sent from my VS987 using EN World mobile app


----------



## gyor (Oct 25, 2017)

Demetrios1453 said:


> Volo is an unreliable narrator from there start, and the book even mentions this fact. And the Sarrukh are a race known only to a few, so to most the origins of the yuan-ti would be clouded in mystery. Volo probably published the latest (incorrect) theories on yuan-ti historical research, which is likely tainted with misinformation from the yuan-ti themselves...
> 
> 
> 
> Sent from my VS987 using EN World mobile app




 On a practical level it will create mistaken impressions on new players.


----------



## gyor (Oct 25, 2017)

Elfcrusher said:


> God no, please.
> 
> 
> 
> ...




 Shield based formation fighter for Legionaire. 

 The fighter class is a very generic combat class without spellcasting,  ribbon abilities,  or other particular flavoured stuff,  so nothing, would conflict thematically with say Werewolves or Vampires. 

 At 3rd level shape shifting, later levels regenerative abilities,  and so on.


----------



## Enevhar Aldarion (Oct 25, 2017)

gyor said:


> SCAGs issues relate to A)  being too small for it's basic purpose which was as a Setting Guide, B)  the player material didn't get the public play testing that the Subclasses in XGTE got.
> 
> But VGTMs in some ways is worse because at least the SCAG knows what setting it's supposed to be apart of,  while VGTM suffers from an identity crisis.
> 
> ...




Well, guess what? There are obviously many more people out there, like me, that like this format for the book and buy them, than there are people, like you, who hate this format and do nothing but say crap about them. So who do you think they are listening to more, the majority giving them money and saying the books are good or the minority who do the opposite?


----------



## Guest 6801328 (Oct 25, 2017)

gyor said:


> Shield based formation fighter for Legionaire.




Oh, yes.  That's actually a concept I've thought about.  Tricky to implement well, I think, but could be fun.  I hate the Roman connotation, personally, but Vikings had shield-walls, too.

The thing is, making a sub-class be dependent on Shield is the same as making it dependent upon a weapon category, namely 1H weapons.  And I don't think they're gonna go there.  I'd like to see it, but I doubt it will happen.




> The fighter class is a very generic combat class without spellcasting,  ribbon abilities,  or other particular flavoured stuff,  so nothing, would conflict thematically with say Werewolves or Vampires.
> 
> At 3rd level shape shifting, later levels regenerative abilities,  and so on.




I didn't say it would conflict thematically, I just do not want to see "sub-classes" become conflated with "conditions".  Then you'd need a sub-class for every class.  (Because, otherwise, how would you explain that I can play a Vampire Fighter but not a Vampire Rogue?)  And if you did have a sub-class for every class, does that mean that if you multi-classed you would have to choose the same sub-class for the other class?  Because if you didn't that would also make no sense. 

I hope they don't do this, but I could see "Werewolf" or "Vampire" being a race, and thus you could play a Werewolf Fighter, but it's definitely not a sub-class.  (Actually, I could see it working out ok if there were also race-specific feats for those races.  So that if you really wanted to go all out as the vampire or werewolf you'd have to spend all your ASIs getting those abilities instead of raising your scores.)


----------



## DM Howard (Oct 25, 2017)

jmucchiello said:


> Or you can just post a thread here asking which are the best Youtube channels that give good DM advice and a bunch of people will point you in a bunch of different directions but the best content will bubble to the top.
> 
> Of course, you can also post a thread here asking for specific DMing advice and you will get better specific advice than a generic article or vid will give you. Given the breadth of knowledge held here and places like here I don't see what value a "curated" generic article has over specific, tailored to you advice.




True enough, and there is definitely something to be said for personalized advice of that sort.  I guess I still like the all-in-one-place approach.  Just call me lazy, I suppose!


----------



## Chaosmancer (Oct 25, 2017)

Kobold Stew said:


> This is an old hobby-horse of mine, which I know is an unpopular view.. I think healing spells should be necromancy. Doing that removes the necessary association with evil, and clearly groups all the spells dealing with life magic.




I actually really like this idea, gives a different flavor to both necromancy and those clerics going around healing everyone.


----------



## Parmandur (Oct 25, 2017)

gyor said:


> 17 pages of names is a problem,  it's blantant filler,  having to contract out books like the SCAG to other companies is a problem,  not being able to produce a proper FRCG is a problem,  the fact that they have to mash books together because wise either DMs or Players go without is a problem.
> 
> So yeah if you shut you eyes of course WotC's words make sense,  as long as you don't actually challenge it.




17 pages of name tables are useful to some folks, and are a feature not a bug. It has been two years since they had an outside company assist with a book. They don't want to produce a "proper" FRCG, for business reasons. Combing DM with player material is a business strategy: if you want material of either or both kinds, buy the book.

The best reason to think these are business decisions rather than desperate ploys? They've kept it up for four complete product cycles, longer than the lifespan of 4E or 3.0, with nobody being fired.


----------



## Parmandur (Oct 25, 2017)

gyor said:


> Lycanthrope,  Vampire,  Wrestler,  Improvised Weapons User. Fighter subclasses that focus in the none combat pillars,  Hopilite or Legionaire,  a divine fighter subclass.
> 
> Subclasses that specialize in particular weapons.



A Crusader type seems doable, and I actually recall that a Psionics Fighter subclass has been mentioned. But past that, pickings are getting awfully thin.


----------



## jmucchiello (Oct 25, 2017)

Enevhar Aldarion said:


> Well, guess what? There are obviously many more people out there, like me, that like this format for the book and buy them, than there are people, like you, who hate this format and do nothing but say crap about them. So who do you think they are listening to more, the majority giving them money and saying the books are good or the minority who do the opposite?




"obviously more...." How do we know this if they have not released a book any other way?

"and do nothing but say crap about them" What other recourse is there for someone who plays 5E and does not like the books WotC makes?

"who are they listening" You make the mistake of assuming people who HATE some of the content of the books are NOT buying them for the other content. They are buying them too because otherwise they have no new material. I don't speak for the person you responded to but for me, I was not happy with SCAG or VOLO and I don't like parts of XaGE that we've seen above. They are still on my shelf to my right (pre-order for XaGE counts as on the shelf). Because they also contain stuff I want. This doesn't mean I can't complain about the stuff I think is wrong with these books. It also means sales don't tell you that people like the product. Scarcity of game options means people buy what they can get their hands on if they like new game options.

sidebar: XGE isn't pronounces about but XaGE could rhyme with sage.


----------



## Balfore (Oct 25, 2017)

Generally, if they would take the steps to make the books more fluid, they would be easier to use.
*stop putting: "See the DM chapter about XX", and put the freaking page number.
*when referencing a particular monster, also add the freaking page number (because the MM isn't completely alphabetical, you have to know the "types".
*shorten the phrases that describe "Magic Resistance" to freaking say "Magic Resistance" Instead of 3 lines of text to explain it.
*explain traps, puzzles and rooms in simple terms. Not everyone has a freaking college degree...lol. (I spend more time looking up obscure words, in order to present it to my group). Or else, provide a freaking glossary of terms...lol.
*provide "text boxes" for NPCs dialog, instead of losing it in the freaking losing the dialog and demeanor of the NPC in the description body of the paragraph. 
*5e is supposed to be the most fluid system so far, yet there's more time spent looking up rules because of wording. (like trying to get a ruleing on Magic the Gathering)then there's conflict of RAW vs RAI.
*I'm sure I'm missing a sleu of other issues that would make these publications more user friendly...
When theres an explaination on Sage Advice or Twitter, Crawford confuses the issues, while Merle simply explains things.
This shows incredible inconsistencies when trying to get a ruling. 

~we'd prefer you not advocate piracy, even by implication.  Thanks!
Judge if you want, I don't care anymore.

Sent from my SM-N910V using Tapatalk


----------



## Parmandur (Oct 25, 2017)

jmucchiello said:


> "obviously more...." How do we know this if they have not released a book any other way?
> 
> "and do nothing but say crap about them" What other recourse is there for someone who plays 5E and does not like the books WotC makes?
> 
> ...



OK, so here's the thing: you are not entirely satisfied with the three rule books WotC has released in the past few years...but you bought all of them.  Let's say they had done 12 books in that time, and three of them pleased you very much and you bought them, three pleased Gyor very much and he bought them, while I bought none because I am not made of money: instead of nine books, they would have sold six, not to mention the percentages.

WotC is playing the numbers, which night not make the absolute best books...but it keeps the game going financially.


----------



## Elderbrain (Oct 26, 2017)

While I WILL be buying the book, there is one thing that annoys me - namely, that WOTC doesn't seem to have learned anything from its Death Domain problem in 3e. If you recall, the 3e Death Domain was, like the 5e Death Domain, inappropriate for gods that weren't Undead-friendly, and they had to add a Repose Domain in later books. In 5e they are repeating the cycle with the Grave Domain - why didn't they have this in the PHB this time?

Also, am I to understand that the Kensei is NOT a weapon specialist?!?


----------



## Kobold Boots (Oct 26, 2017)

Elderbrain said:


> While I WILL be buying the book, there is one thing that annoys me - namely, that WOTC doesn't seem to have learned anything from its Death Domain problem in 3e. If you recall, the 3e Death Domain was, like the 5e Death Domain, inappropriate for gods that weren't Undead-friendly, and they had to add a Repose Domain in later books. In 5e they are repeating the cycle with the Grave Domain - why didn't they have this in the PHB this time?




Because that which generated income last time will undoubtedly generate income this time.  Therefore it wasn't a mistake, it was a plan.


----------



## cbwjm (Oct 26, 2017)

Elderbrain said:


> While I WILL be buying the book, there is one thing that annoys me - namely, that WOTC doesn't seem to have learned anything from its Death Domain problem in 3e. If you recall, the 3e Death Domain was, like the 5e Death Domain, inappropriate for gods that weren't Undead-friendly, and they had to add a Repose Domain in later books. In 5e they are repeating the cycle with the Grave Domain - why didn't they have this in the PHB this time?
> 
> Also, am I to understand that the Kensei is NOT a weapon specialist?!?




If they had made it for gods that aren't undead friendly then what would happen to the domain for gods that are undead friendly? Remember, the death domain wasn't released as a player's option in the PHB, it was released in the DMG as an option for villainous characters, that is, a stereotypical cleric of an evil god that raises the undead to fight for them. Even then, it isn't really super undead friendly, you could easily swap out a couple of domain spells to make it more suitable for a god of the dead that doesn't automatically grant the power to create undead minions. Animate dead is the only spell I can think of on the domain list that might be problematic for an anti undead god of death.


----------



## hejtmane (Oct 26, 2017)

Elderbrain said:


> While I WILL be buying the book, there is one thing that annoys me - namely, that WOTC doesn't seem to have learned anything from its Death Domain problem in 3e. If you recall, the 3e Death Domain was, like the 5e Death Domain, inappropriate for gods that weren't Undead-friendly, and they had to add a Repose Domain in later books. In 5e they are repeating the cycle with the Grave Domain - why didn't they have this in the PHB this time?
> 
> Also, am I to understand that the Kensei is NOT a weapon specialist?!?




If it is anything close to the last revision then yes they can only make by level 6 three weapons they use be counted as magical; 1 main weapon 1 ranged and a 3rd one may get another one later do not remember. They also dropped heavy weapons in the revision so 1h and versatile weapons and ranged weapons. My guess is it will be pretty close to the revision the first one was a mess and every one was like why would you make this and take away all the Monk features I can already do this now with multiclass


----------



## Azzy (Oct 26, 2017)

gyor said:


> SCAGs issues relate to A)  being too small for it's basic purpose which was as a Setting Guide, B)  the player material didn't get the public play testing that the Subclasses in XGTE got.




A) It was never intended to be a comprehensive setting guide, it—like the title says—is about the Sword Coast, with a brief overview of other areas.
B) Not everything has, or will have, a public playtest. This isn't necessarily a bad thing, it's just a thing.



> But VGTMs in some ways is worse because at least the SCAG knows what setting it's supposed to be apart of,  while VGTM suffers from an identity crisis.
> 
> Is it a general options book or an FR book?  If general options then naming it after Volo is unethical and misleading because that name means something.




It's a non-setting-specific book, that uses the FR IP for branding purposes to make it sound more interesting than "Monster Manual 2". In the same manner that Xanathar's Guide will not be setting specific either. The naming is just a conceit, and they'll probably use characters from other setting for the same puposes whenever they introduce other setting via their APs.



> If it's FR then a lot of the lore in it, especially the Yuan Ti origins is straight up wrong.  The line is blurred and I don't like that. In FR the Sarrukh created the Yuan Ti not a decadent human snake worshipping empire.




Considering that 4e straight up rewrote the lore on lots of things, this is a quibble at best. But, again, this isn't a FR-specific book.



> Does VGTM want to be a DM book or player book?




Yes. Pretty much all non-AP books they release are going to be similar in that regard (much like 1e's Unearthed Arcana, Oriental Adventures, Dungeoneer's Survival Guide, and Wilderness Survival Guide). This way it appeals to more people than just those that DM or those that don't DM.



> XGTM looks like it will suffer from similar flaws,  although not to the same degree.




While Xanathar's looks like it will be suffering from several flaws, these aren't any of them.


----------



## guachi (Oct 26, 2017)

But VGTM isn't a more interesting name. It's named after some schmuck I've barely hard of. Strip out the meaningless words and your left with "Monsters". Do that with the Monster Manual, which at least has alliteration, and you have "Monster".

What's worse is that calling it "Volo's" made me think it was a FR book. It's misleading title actively discouraged me from buying the book.

The more I think about Everything the more I think it's not worth the price of admission.


----------



## Li Shenron (Oct 26, 2017)

Elderbrain said:


> While I WILL be buying the book, there is one thing that annoys me - namely, that WOTC doesn't seem to have learned anything from its Death Domain problem in 3e. If you recall, the 3e Death Domain was, like the 5e Death Domain, inappropriate for gods that weren't Undead-friendly, and they had to add a Repose Domain in later books. In 5e they are repeating the cycle with the Grave Domain - why didn't they have this in the PHB this time?




Grave Clerics and Swashbuckler Rogues are IMHO the two archetypes that should have been in the PHB.

But I think the reason they were not is simply because all the character material requires design work and playtesting, and that also means a long time, if you want it to be of good quality. I just think they had to make some choices, and focus their efforts on them at the expense of others which were cut. There were other no-brainer domains which didn't make it, such as Magic and the elemental ones. In addition, while they always have to include some obvious options to the game, they also wanted to feature a few unusual ones to attract attention and generate inspiration to old players (see the GoO warlock or the paladin of the ancients). In other words, the blanket is never big enough...


----------



## MasterYogurt (Oct 26, 2017)

I'm gonna let my players buy this. There's more in this release for them than me.


----------



## MagicSN (Oct 26, 2017)

About the price issue - is it really intended, that it is CHEAPER for a german to buy the book from amazon.com, let it be shipped from US to Germany instead of buying it from German Amazon?

Price on amazon.com: 30 USD+International shipping = 35 EUR
Price on amazon.de as Amazon Prime Customer (Free shipping) = 40 EUR

Sounds very weird to me.


----------



## Parmandur (Oct 26, 2017)

Azzy said:


> A) It was never intended to be a comprehensive setting guide, it—like the title says—is about the Sword Coast, with a brief overview of other areas.
> B) Not everything has, or will have, a public playtest. This isn't necessarily a bad thing, it's just a thing.
> 
> 
> ...



Yes to all of this, and not only have they been consistent and upfront the past few years with this approach, they have doubled down on the strategy. In the past, when a strategy isn't working for WotC, they simply hit the reset button.


----------



## Parmandur (Oct 26, 2017)

guachi said:


> But VGTM isn't a more interesting name. It's named after some schmuck I've barely hard of. Strip out the meaningless words and your left with "Monsters". Do that with the Monster Manual, which at least has alliteration, and you have "Monster".
> 
> What's worse is that calling it "Volo's" made me think it was a FR book. It's misleading title actively discouraged me from buying the book.
> 
> The more I think about Everything the more I think it's not worth the price of admission.



It's named after a character from a hit line of pulp fantasy novels, and has more character than "Mo' Monsters IV."

Maybe the using character names thing doesn't work for you, but that doesn't mean it is a bad idea for marketing purposes.


----------



## Igor of Dork Tower (Oct 26, 2017)

It seems a bit thin for all the hype, they have been giving it. I feel that a lot of sourcebooks lately lack substance.


----------



## Satyrn (Oct 26, 2017)

Parmandur said:


> "Mo' Monsters IV."




I'd buy that for a dollar!


----------



## cbwjm (Oct 26, 2017)

MagicSN said:


> About the price issue - is it really intended, that it is CHEAPER for a german to buy the book from amazon.com, let it be shipped from US to Germany instead of buying it from German Amazon?
> 
> Price on amazon.com: 30 USD+International shipping = 35 EUR
> Price on amazon.de as Amazon Prime Customer (Free shipping) = 40 EUR
> ...



It normally ends up cheaper for me to buy on Amazon and ship it to New Zealand than buy it film the local game store. Not that I'm counting the dollars, it's just more convenient for me to have it delivered.


----------



## MagicSN (Oct 26, 2017)

> It normally ends up cheaper for me to buy on Amazon and ship it to New Zealand than buy it film the local game store. Not that I'm counting the dollars, it's just more convenient for me to have it delivered.




Yeah, but I am not comparing Amazon and local store. I am comparing Amazon and Amazon (US-Amazon and German Amazon). That should cost the same, it should be cheaper on german amazon than on US-Amazon (due to no shipping cost due to Amazon Prime), the "base" price should be the same!

The difference was not as big with other manuals, but this time - it is huuuuuge! It just makes no sense to order it on amazon.de, it only makes sense to order on amazon.com...


----------



## jmucchiello (Oct 26, 2017)

Parmandur said:


> OK, so here's the thing: you are not entirely satisfied with the three rule books WotC has released in the past few years...but you bought all of them.  Let's say they had done 12 books in that time,



No, because they didn't. And I'm not complaining about quantity. I'm complaining about quality.



> WotC is playing the numbers, which night not make the absolute best books...but it keeps the game going financially.



This does not matter to me.


----------



## cbwjm (Oct 26, 2017)

MagicSN said:


> Yeah, but I am not comparing Amazon and local store. I am comparing Amazon and Amazon (US-Amazon and German Amazon). That should cost the same, it should be cheaper on german amazon than on US-Amazon (due to no shipping cost due to Amazon Prime), the "base" price should be the same!
> 
> The difference was not as big with other manuals, but this time - it is huuuuuge! It just makes no sense to order it on amazon.de, it only makes sense to order on amazon.com...



Does German Amazon have the discount? The USA Amazon has a discount from $50 to $30 last I checked. If the unless Germany Amazon follows suit then that isn't too surprising since it really is a massive discount, there isn't much markup on books so Amazon won't be making much money them.


----------



## Parmandur (Oct 26, 2017)

jmucchiello said:


> No, because they didn't. And I'm not complaining about quantity. I'm complaining about quality.
> 
> 
> This does not matter to me.



But the qualities you are speaking of are related to quantity: one rule book a year means it needs to appeal as broad a base as possible, including people who like random name lists and people who don't, people who only play and people who only DM, at the same time between the same cover. This means focus will fall by the wayside much if the time.

That you have bought all three rule books despite your reservations suggests that they are succeeding.


----------



## jmucchiello (Oct 26, 2017)

Parmandur said:


> But the qualities you are speaking of are related to quantity: one rule book a year means it needs to appeal as broad a base as possible, including people who like random name lists and people who don't, people who only play and people who only DM, at the same time between the same cover. This means focus will fall by the wayside much if the time.




You theory ignores the adventures that they sell. They appeal nearly exclusively to DMs. (And people who just like to read adventures) There should be something that is more exclusive to the players. Hybrid books are not needed.



> That you have bought all three rule books despite your reservations suggests that they are succeeding.




No, it suggests I'm stupid. Or have sufficient money to spend unwisely.


----------



## Parmandur (Oct 26, 2017)

jmucchiello said:


> You theory ignores the adventures that they sell. They appeal nearly exclusively to DMs. (And people who just like to read adventures) There should be something that is more exclusive to the players. Hybrid books are not needed.
> 
> 
> 
> No, it suggests I'm stupid. Or have sufficient money to spend unwisely.



By and large, DMs are the ones who buy books: players who buy books just don't know that they are DMs yet. 

The APs all have player material, as well.

I think that you are neither stupid, nor wasting your money. WotC figured out how to sell books to you effectively, is all.


----------



## MostlyHarmless42 (Oct 27, 2017)

A bit late to the party, but a pet peeve of mine: information that is given away in an officially sanctioned capacity (i.e. as the case for this because of the charity) is NOT leaked information. A "leak" by definition is unintentional from the perspective of whomever owns the information. I think nearly every one of these Xanathers threads has this same issue, and not just on this website either. *sigh*

...still fun information to have. I look forward not just to the new subclasses, but a lot of the DM tools in particular.


----------



## Demetrios1453 (Oct 27, 2017)

MostlyHarmless42 said:


> A bit late to the party, but a pet peeve of mine: information that is given away in an officially sanctioned capacity (i.e. as the case for this because of the charity) is NOT leaked information. A "leak" by definition is unintentional from the perspective of whomever owns the information. I think nearly every one of these Xanathers threads has this same issue, and not just on this website either. *sigh*
> 
> ...still fun information to have. I look forward not just to the new subclasses, but a lot of the DM tools in particular.




Well, in this case, the table of contents was actually leaked about a week before the official release of the information by WotC - someone apparently mined it from D&D Beyond's database.


----------



## Guest 6801328 (Oct 27, 2017)

Parmandur said:


> By and large, DMs are the ones who buy books: players who buy books just don't know that they are DMs yet.




That is worthy of a .sig quote.


----------



## MostlyHarmless42 (Oct 27, 2017)

Demetrios1453 said:


> Well, in this case, the table of contents was actually leaked about a week before the official release of the information by WotC - someone apparently mined it from D&D Beyond's database.




In that case, I would question the legality of data - mining and the posting itself, though I suppose it's kind of a moot point at this point given Wizards released it themselves as a preview.


----------



## Guest 6801328 (Oct 27, 2017)

MostlyHarmless42 said:


> In that case, I would question the legality of data - mining and the posting itself, though I suppose it's kind of a moot point at this point given Wizards released it themselves as a preview.




Now I'm waiting for another pedant to post about how incorrect usage of "moot" is his pet peeve....


----------



## MostlyHarmless42 (Oct 27, 2017)

Elfcrusher said:


> Now I'm waiting for another pedant to post about how incorrect usage of "moot" is his pet peeve....




And you would be correct in doing so. I did indeed misuse the wrong phrasing of the term!  

Then again, it all is sort of a matter of perspective as to what defines "legitimate" English anyway.

http://mentalfloss.com/article/30052/meaning-word-moot-moot


----------



## Azzy (Oct 27, 2017)

MostlyHarmless42 said:


> A bit late to the party, but a pet peeve of mine: information that is given away in an officially sanctioned capacity (i.e. as the case for this because of the charity) is NOT leaked information. A "leak" by definition is unintentional from the perspective of whomever owns the information. I think nearly every one of these Xanathers threads has this same issue, and not just on this website either. *sigh*
> 
> ...still fun information to have. I look forward not just to the new subclasses, but a lot of the DM tools in particular.




Ah, ENWorld delivers.


----------



## MagicSN (Oct 27, 2017)

> Does German Amazon have the discount? The USA Amazon has a discount from $50 to $30 last I checked. If the unless Germany Amazon follows suit then that isn't too surprising since it really is a massive discount, there isn't much markup on books so Amazon won't be making much money them.




German Amazon doesn't have the discount. My point is if they do not offer the discount in German Amazon they can as well not offer it at German Amazon at all, as nobody will order it there ;-) The only point there is if they offer the discount there too, or at least some discount (on German Amazon Amazon Prime customers can order without shipping cost).


----------



## SmokeyCriminal (Oct 27, 2017)

I might be completely wrong about this. But I think I remember hearing that reason they're doing the DM/Player books is because it tested well with market research, and the fact they sold well just backed up that assumption. But I can't remember well enough to defend the statement.

On why there is no Monster Manual 2, I do remember why they said they're not doing it. And you can blame it on those pesky new players. They found because of the buying habits that they developed from video games that having Monster Manual 2/3/4 is confusing (or to be fair, its not intuitive to their shopping habits).

 For example, If they want to play GTA (Grand Theft Auto), They go to the store and go straight for GTA 5, the most recent release. They completely ignore all the other GTA games because they are old, Indicated to them by the fact that they are all less then 5. GTA 4 has worse graphics, and they're servers are probably empty and you probably need an old console to even play it. ect ect.

A not zero amount of times, a new person to TTRPG, would go to the FLGS wanting to buy a PHB to start playing D&D for the very first time. See PHB and PHB 2 next to each other on the shelf, and grab PHB 2. Because its the newest one so its obviously the one they should get, right?

If you have a Volos Guide to Monsters, a Bobs Guide to Monsters, a Jennys Guide to Monsters Then they all stand on equal footing in the minds of new players and it doesn't matter that Volos is the oldest and Jennys is the newest. And they said that if they ever make a PHB it is definitely not going to be called PHB 2. It'll probably be something like "Mandys Wonderous Player Expansion DLC (That you buy only AFTER the PHB)." Because yes, we probably do need it spelled out that plainly. Sorry Grogs.


----------



## Li Shenron (Oct 27, 2017)

Igor of Dork Tower said:


> It seems a bit thin for all the hype, they have been giving it. I feel that a lot of sourcebooks lately lack substance.




This is definitely common to all 5e books. Immediately upon picking up the PHB I felt it was too "light".

After playing the game tho, I changed my mind. Compared to the 3e PHB, the 5e PHB has indeed a lot less information (just compare the size of the font being used), but the truth is that 3e was a much heavier system that required a lot more information. Essentially the 5e PHB creates a game of the same "magnitude" of the 3e PHB. The same is mostly true also for the MM and DMG, having a number of options reasonably comparable to the 3e books.

On the other hand, it's a bit different case for supplements. SCAG is difficult to address since it has a lot of fluff (anyway I don't have it, so I can't say much about it). But if you compare XGE with a typical 3e supplement of the same size, you'll see that indeed it ends up having less character options. The amount of crunch is more similar to early 3.0 supplements like "Tome & Blood", which had IIRC a hundred pages only or so.


----------



## Enevhar Aldarion (Oct 27, 2017)

MagicSN said:


> German Amazon doesn't have the discount. My point is if they do not offer the discount in German Amazon they can as well not offer it at German Amazon at all, as nobody will order it there ;-) The only point there is if they offer the discount there too, or at least some discount (on German Amazon Amazon Prime customers can order without shipping cost).




It is not just US versus German Amazon. I have seen more than once an item at a good discount on US Amazon that is either at a lesser discount or not discount at all on Canada Amazon. Maybe Amazon as a whole sees Americans as much more of a bargain-hunting country and thus we get the biggest discounts?


----------



## Parmandur (Oct 27, 2017)

SmokeyCriminal said:


> I might be completely wrong about this. But I think I remember hearing that reason they're doing the DM/Player books is because it tested well with market research, and the fact they sold well just backed up that assumption. But I can't remember well enough to defend the statement.
> 
> On why there is no Monster Manual 2, I do remember why they said they're not doing it. And you can blame it on those pesky new players. They found because of the buying habits that they developed from video games that having Monster Manual 2/3/4 is confusing (or to be fair, its not intuitive to their shopping habits).
> 
> ...



Xanathar's Guide is the PHB2, and DMG2.


----------



## Nathan McTague (Oct 27, 2017)

1. Volo is a trustworthy source.
2. Xanther most like wrote it using Mage Hand (the spell cantrip)
3. When is it coming out?


----------



## hejtmane (Oct 27, 2017)

Funny the original unearth arcana 130 pages and $20 which was super expensive in 1984 and no Amazon to bring the price down. My option Walden's or B Dalton's 

Sent from my Pixel XL using Tapatalk


----------



## flametitan (Oct 27, 2017)

hejtmane said:


> Funny the original unearth arcana 130 pages and $20 which was super expensive in 1984 and no Amazon to bring the price down. My option Walden's or B Dalton's
> 
> Sent from my Pixel XL using Tapatalk




For reference, the $20 Unearthed Arcana would be $47.51 now, or about the price of Xanathar's Guide.


----------



## Lylandra (Oct 27, 2017)

MagicSN said:


> German Amazon doesn't have the discount. My point is if they do not offer the discount in German Amazon they can as well not offer it at German Amazon at all, as nobody will order it there ;-) The only point there is if they offer the discount there too, or at least some discount (on German Amazon Amazon Prime customers can order without shipping cost).




You could also go to amazon UK and get the book for ~25€ (without shipping). GBP are quite cheap these days


----------



## Parmandur (Oct 28, 2017)

flametitan said:


> For reference, the $20 Unearthed Arcana would be $47.51 now, or about the price of Xanathar's Guide.



Or 50% more expensive, because no Amazon


----------



## Guest 6801328 (Oct 28, 2017)

flametitan said:


> For reference, the $20 Unearthed Arcana would be $47.51 now, or about the price of Xanathar's Guide.




This got me perusing the original Unearthed Arcana.  There just a handful of new classes/sub-classes, with startling word-counts required to describe each one, including many, many tables.  For example, the table spelling out a Cavalier's weapon bonuses:


> - At 1st level, the cavalier is + 1 “to hit” with the lance, if used
> while mounted.
> - At 3rd level, the cavalier is + 1 “to hit” with either the broad
> sword, long sword, or scimitar (player’s choice).
> ...




Yeah, some real page count value in that volume.

Here's a gem that made me laugh:


> At 4th level, a female elven cavalier (and only a female elf) may handle and ride a unicorn as a steed.


----------



## Parmandur (Oct 28, 2017)

Elfcrusher said:


> This got me perusing the original Unearthed Arcana.  There just a handful of new classes/sub-classes, with startling word-counts required to describe each one, including many, many tables.  For example, the table spelling out a Cavalier's weapon bonuses:
> 
> 
> Yeah, some real page count value in that volume.
> ...



Yeeeeaaaah, that was a literal "we are about to go bankrupt" cash grab by Gygax & Co.


----------



## Kobold Boots (Oct 28, 2017)

Elfcrusher said:


> This got me perusing the original Unearthed Arcana.  There just a handful of new classes/sub-classes, with startling word-counts required to describe each one, including many, many tables.  For example, the table spelling out a Cavalier's weapon bonuses:
> 
> 
> Yeah, some real page count value in that volume.
> ...




Made worse by the fact that nearly the entire book was reprints of Dragon articles.  So if you already had the mags, there was very little point in buying the book.


----------



## hejtmane (Oct 28, 2017)

Kobold Boots said:


> Made worse by the fact that nearly the entire book was reprints of Dragon articles.  So if you already had the mags, there was very little point in buying the book.




I have an original copy of Unearth Arcana I ended up with I did not buy that one we split buying them but I ended up with it and I bought the Oriental adventures book when that one came out


----------



## R_Chance (Oct 28, 2017)

Kobold Boots said:


> Made worse by the fact that nearly the entire book was reprints of Dragon articles.  So if you already had the mags, there was very little point in buying the book.




I bought UA, the hardback was a lot more durable than the magazines. I have all my Dragon/ Strategic Review magazines boxed and bagged  Iirc, there are three Dragons I didn't get (I was buying at the FLGS and they sold out a couple of issues). I did photocopy some articles that were used heavily. Then, when they put out the Dragon Magazine Archive on CD Rom I picked that up. 250 issues of TD and all the SRs. I might pick up a couple of PDFs of the missing issues and a few later issues at some point. I miss that magazine...


----------



## MechaPilot (Oct 30, 2017)

Azzy said:


> 3e pretty much had the best spell list presentation of the editions. Could use a bit of tweaking, but was pretty good.




3e was good.  But, for quick reference during play 4e is the hands-down winner in my book.  I mean it's not even close.  3e could have a relevant mechanic buried in paragraphs of text, but 4e put all the relevant mechanics front and center for easy reference.


----------



## Erechel (Nov 9, 2017)

I have my concerns: why there are in this book so many previously published subclasses, as the rogue Mastermind or Storm sorcery? There are a lot of spells also that already were in the Elemental Evil Companion. There is also the cleric's domains, that I didn't quite like in prior versions in the UA. I believe that this book may have serious balancing issues.


----------



## Parmandur (Nov 9, 2017)

MechaPilot said:


> 3e was good.  But, for quick reference during play 4e is the hands-down winner in my book.  I mean it's not even close.  3e could have a relevant mechanic buried in paragraphs of text, but 4e put all the relevant mechanics front and center for easy reference.



But, then you have to play 4E. Pros and cons to every decision...


----------



## Parmandur (Nov 9, 2017)

Erechel said:


> I have my concerns: why there are in this book so many previously published subclasses, as the rogue Mastermind or Storm sorcery? There are a lot of spells also that already were in the Elemental Evil Companion. There is also the cleric's domains, that I didn't quite like in prior versions in the UA. I believe that this book may have serious balancing issues.



YMMV on the content, but the balance looks solid: lots of mechanical playtesting.


----------



## MechaPilot (Nov 9, 2017)

Parmandur said:


> But, then you have to play 4E. Pros and cons to every decision...




4e was great.  I loved it.


----------



## Parmandur (Nov 9, 2017)

MechaPilot said:


> 4e was great.  I loved it.



And good for you: however, the element cited (powers organization and notation) was one of the biggest turnoffs versus older editions or the 5E approach for me.


----------



## MechaPilot (Nov 10, 2017)

Parmandur said:


> And good for you: however, the element cited (powers organization and notation) was one of the biggest turnoffs versus older editions or the 5E approach for me.




Would it really be such a turnoff if they'd placed the 4e style notation at the top (or bottom) of each spell entry as a quick-reference aid and used the 3e style for the paragraphs of description?  Because that way you'd get the rules buried in paragraphs of text as you like and people like me would get the quick reference we'd like without having to shell out extra money for stupid spell cards.


----------



## Parmandur (Nov 10, 2017)

MechaPilot said:


> Would it really be such a turnoff if they'd placed the 4e style notation at the top (or bottom) of each spell entry as a quick-reference aid and used the 3e style for the paragraphs of description?  Because that way you'd get the rules buried in paragraphs of text as you like and people like me would get the quick reference we'd like without having to shell out extra money for stupid spell cards.



Natural language is always to be preferred, absolutely.


----------



## Kobold Boots (Nov 10, 2017)

MechaPilot said:


> Would it really be such a turnoff if they'd placed the 4e style notation at the top (or bottom) of each spell entry as a quick-reference aid and used the 3e style for the paragraphs of description?  Because that way you'd get the rules buried in paragraphs of text as you like and people like me would get the quick reference we'd like without having to shell out extra money for stupid spell cards.




You don't have to shell out money for spell cards if you simply create your own props or crib sheets prior to the game.  Back in the day I used to ask spell casters to do this as a real life equivalent of their character's main or traveling spell books simply so the game would run faster.

KB


----------



## Kobold Boots (Nov 10, 2017)

Erechel said:


> I have my concerns: why there are in this book so many previously published subclasses, as the rogue Mastermind or Storm sorcery? There are a lot of spells also that already were in the Elemental Evil Companion. There is also the cleric's domains, that I didn't quite like in prior versions in the UA. I believe that this book may have serious balancing issues.




Balancing issues happen at the table, not the publisher.

All the authors can do is keep a general eye on playability and balance in play-test.  Everything in every book has the chance of being unbalanced at the table because players are good at interpreting rules in their favor and DM's are in many cases less skilled at managing expectations without losing their group.


----------



## Erechel (Nov 10, 2017)

Kobold Boots said:


> Balancing issues happen at the table, not the publisher.
> 
> All the authors can do is keep a general eye on playability and balance in play-test.  Everything in every book has the chance of being unbalanced at the table because players are good at interpreting rules in their favor and DM's are in many cases less skilled at managing expectations without losing their group.




You are saying nothing. You are denying the very existence of balance. There is several definitions of balance, but there _are_, nevertheless. _Of course_ they happen at a table, but they are generated in the rules. If you are a fighter with 3 HP and one attack, and your cleric friend has 25 HP, three attacks and spellcasting at the same level, there is a balancing issue.


----------

