D&D 5E Xanathar's Guide to Everything -- new mechanical expansion/UA book! -- November 10 with a limited-edition cover by Hydro74

[Li Shenron]

I honestly liked none of those, pacifists make no sense as adventurers, and the undying light steps on the Undying Warlocks toes big time, and it doesn't really have a patron.

That's exactly what I mean and why I like them. They are really different and therefore they can be game-changers or story-changers. Most of the other concepts are just minor additions to the game, but that's what most gamers want apparently.

 

[gyor]

"while also expanding the ways players can engage in organized play and shared world campaigns."

That sounds interesting. Perhaps by Shared World Campaigns they mean settings other then FR?

 

[gyor]

That's exactly what I mean and why I like them. They are really different and therefore they can be game-changers or story-changers. Most of the other concepts are just minor additions to the game, but that's what most gamers want apparently.

Not every chance improves creativity, the undying light warlock actually reduces it, because there is no choice of warlock patron, so you can't individualize it.

 

[GarrettKP]

"while also expanding the ways players can engage in organized play and shared world campaigns."

That sounds interesting. Perhaps by Shared World Campaigns they mean settings other then FR?

No, they mean Adventure League and similar organized play systems. "Shared World campaigns" means a game world where multiple groups make impact on the story and share a unified canon.

 

[gyor]

IIRC, the UA Cavalier was largely focused on riding but the Knight & Samurai were "noble educated warriors".

I don't know what were the feedback results, but personally I thought the Cavalier was appalling for two reasons:

- riding abilities are always problematic in D&D because of many adventures being in dungeons (or anyway in places where a horse is impractical), leading to player's frustration for having abilities she cannot use, and DM's pressure to adapt adventures to compensate

- the UA version re-used the Superiority Dice mechanics but basically just offered a small subset of maneuvers from the Battlemaster, plus maybe 1-2 new out-of-combat unique maneuvers

In my opinion Knight & Samurai were a more solid concept, although the mechanics weren't particularly interesting, and probably it would make a lot of sense to merge these into a single subclass, and just let flavor distinguish between the European and Asian versions. However, I guess a lot of people found both of them weak concepts given the fact that any Fighter with the Noble background can adequately cover them.

So while my preference would be to merge all the three of them together, it's really possible that the Cavalier is just the horse-riding focused subclass, but hopefully with better mechanics.

Yeah I had a feeling it would be the Cavalier, because A) there is already a Knight subclass, the Purple Dragon Knight, a Knight background, and the Paladin is usually considered a magical knight universally (hence why the Oath of Ancients Paladins are described as Fey Knights and Green Knights right in their description, and Avengers as Dark Knights in their description for example).
B) The Knight, Cavalier, and Samurai had overlapping features, as you said better to combine them, although I'd bring back suppiority dice.

 

[CapnZapp]

- riding abilities are always problematic in D&D because of many adventures being in dungeons (or anyway in places where a horse is impractical), leading to player's frustration for having abilities she cannot use, and DM's pressure to adapt adventures to compensate

I might have my misgivings, but this is not one of them.

Your line of reasoning leads to no class ever getting any riding abilities. That doesn't make sense. Isn't it much more reasonable to provide a "riding subclass" and then agree to use it only in appropriate campaigns...?

 

[Shasarak]

So it does appear that this book will be indeed a "reverse-Volo's", with the villain musing on those meddling adventurers, and how to best deal with them. Presumably it's happily ruminating all this to its beloved goldfish.

My guess is that the latest Xanathar probably has a lot of material from the previous failed Xanathars: The First one got killed by Adventurers, the second one also got killed by Adventurers, the third one caught on fire and then got killed by Adventurers but the fourth one stayed alive and got a goldfish.

 

[CapnZapp]

My guess is that the latest Xanathar probably has a lot of material from the previous failed Xanathars: The First one got killed by Adventurers, the second one also got killed by Adventurers, the third one caught on fire and then got killed by Adventurers but the fourth one stayed alive and got a goldfish.

Are you saying Xanathar has class levels in Bard?

Sent from my C6603 using EN World mobile app

 

[Shasarak]

Are you saying Xanathar has class levels in Bard?

Not in 5e I am betting.

 

[gyor]

I might have my misgivings, but this is not one of them.

Your line of reasoning leads to no class ever getting any riding abilities. That doesn't make sense. Isn't it much more reasonable to provide a "riding subclass" and then agree to use it only in appropriate campaigns...?

Or have a feature that makes mount more usable in cramped spaces.