Another Delve Into Xanathar's Guide To Everything

Xanathar's Guide to Everything packs a lot of useful content for both players and DMs in its 192 pages. Here I'm going to expand on the first part of my review to cover the section that will probably be used the most by its readers – character options.

Xanathar's Guide to Everything packs a lot of useful content for both players and DMs in its 192 pages. Here I'm going to expand on the first part of my review to cover the section that will probably be used the most by its readers – character options.

XanatharAlt_ProductShot.jpg

The Player's Handbook defines classes as a calling that affects the player's world view, not just a job. So while a fighter is a "master of martial combat," the paladin is a "holy warrior bound to a sacred oath" and the ranger is "a warrior who uses martial prowess and natural magic to combat threats on the edge of civilization."

Subclasses begin with "a character-defining choice at 1st, 2nd, or 3rd level that unlock features not available to the class as a whole. The subclass chart in XGtE illustrates briefly how these features also affect the character's purpose and world view. For example, the Gloom Stalker Ranger is "unafraid of the dark, relentlessly stalks and ambushes foes" while the Horizon Walker "finds portals to other worlds and channels planar magic" and the Monster Slayer "hunts down creatures of the night and wielders of grim magic."

The Barbarian subclass options in XGtE provide more variety than the ones in the PHB or Sword Coast Adventurer's Guide. The PHB had the Berserker and Totem Warrior. SCAG added additional totem options for the latter and the Battlerager, which was essentially a Berserker customized for Dwarves.

The three Primal Path options in XGtE add true variety. The Ancestral Guardian Primal Path is geared toward defending others than charging into battle. The Path of the Storm Herald creates a Barbarian whose powers are Thor (or other storm god) inspired. It's likely to be a player favorite because causing lightning damage to your opponents is always fun. Affects of the storm aura even vary by terrain – desert, sea or tundra.

The Path of the Zealot is a sort of divinely empowered Barbarian. The name goes against what I typically think of as barbarian characteristics, but that's just me. Players are more likely to be disappointed that the 3rd level ability simply means that spells used to raise the Zealot Barbarian from the dead do not need material spell components. In comparison to things like the Storm Herald Barbarian's Storm Aura at 3rd level, it does seem like a weaker feature. However, they also get Divine Fury at the same level, dealing extra damage to the first creature hit on each turn with a weapon.

The Bard Colleges in SCAG provided more flavor than practical benefits. The three presented in XGtE actually make me want to play a bard.

The College of Glamour is inspired by the Feywild, where its practitioners either honed their abilities or trained under those who did. Its abilities are geared toward influence and appearance. The College of Swords is more daring-do in flavor. Players who want a character akin to Syrio Forel, the water dancer from A Game of Thrones will like this option. My only complaint is having to choose between dueling and two-weapon fighting at 3rd level, though I understand the reason for it from a game design perspective. I just want a duel using a two-weapon fighting style.

I like the College of Whispers both thematically and mechanically. Bards who act as spies and specialize in manipulation find a home in this category.

However, the subclass description suggests that members of this college hide their true nature to avoid bias from others and to better use their skills of infiltration. From a story standpoint, that makes perfect sense. In actual play, it's very difficult because even parties that try not to metagame are going to notice the difference between the player's statements of action to the DM versus what is said in-game. There are ways around it, but in my experience they only last so long. When any class description suggests that a character try to hide what they are, I'd like to see the class features offer a way to do that in game with some sort of misdirection or concealment ability.

The PHB gave clerics seven domains to start with, and the Dungeon Master's Guide added the Death Domain for NPCs (or at DM's discretion for players). SCAG added the Arcane Domain. XGtE adds the Forge and Grave Domains.

Anyone glossing over the Forge Domain, assuming it's boring, would be missing out. While gods of the forge might be seen as having more of a supplementary role, their clerics are able to use their abilities to increase weapon damage, improve armor and, eventually, withstand fire and non-magical weapon attacks.

The Grave Domain was mostly created to appease players whose DM's did not allow the Death Domain (or Adventurer's League players since AL forbids both the Death Domain Cleric and Oathbreaker Paladin). Don't mistake that as being a weaker version of the original. The Grave Domain has its own formidable abilities, such as the 2nd level Path to the Grave, which allows the cleric to curse a creature with a vulnerability to damage by yourself or an ally.

Druids get two new subclasses – Circle of Dreams and Circle of the Shepherd. The former is influenced by the Feywild so it focuses more on hidden pathways, creating havens for healing and dreamwalking.

Thematically, I love Circle of the Shepherd, but something about the features feel less inspiring. Characters can speak to beasts, though it doesn't automatically convey friendship or control of them. The list of spirits that can be called – hawk, bear and unicorn – also feels a bit skimpy. As a DM, I might tweak this subclass a bit, though I haven't decided how yet.

In the PHB, Fighter subclass options were the Champion, which focused on raw power, the Battle Master, which was more of a tactician, and the Eldritch Knight, who could cast spells. XGtE adds the Arcane Archer, Cavalier and Samurai. The first is likely to be the most popular. Who doesn't love magical arrows and similar stunts? The other two classes were discussed previously.

The Monk's Way of the Sun Soul allows characters to channel ki into bolts of light. While thematically very different from the Storm Herald Barbarian, there are some commonalities from a feature standpoint, which makes perfect sense. The Way of the Drunken Master was described in my prior XGtE article. The Way of the Kensei focuses on weapon mastery.

Xanathar_KeyArt.png

Much like how the Grave Domain appeals to those who want to play Death Domain Clerics, the Oath of Conquest Paladins seem designed to appease Oathbreaker Paladin fans. Conquest Paladins might even worship archdevils for their harsh infliction of law. Oath of Redemption Paladins are the exact opposite and the closest 5th Edition has come to the pacifist cleric. These paladins can and will fight creatures like undead, devils, etc., but their primary abilities are protective.

Gloom Stalkers are rangers for the Underdark, though they're not limited to that. Delving into shadow to fight evil is their purpose. Monster Slayers are complements to Gloom Stalkers by seeking out evil fey, vampires, and other magical threats. Horizon Walkers explore the multiverse and protect against planar threats.

Rogues get the most subclasses at four, though two of them – Mastermind and Swashbuckler – are carried over from SCAG due to AL's "PHB +1" rule for character creation. The Inquisitive Rogue is geared toward Sherlock Holmes (or Moriarty) type characters.

The Scout is such a classic Rogue variant I'm surprised it wasn't in the PHB. XGtE does a nice job of distinguishing this wilderness character mechanically from rangers.

For Sorcerers, Storm Sorcery also carries over from the Sword Coast Adventurer's Guide. Shadow Magic is the other addition. Unlike most of the others, it gets two abilities at 1st level and none at 3rd with one of those abilities making it a little tougher to kill them. Hound of Ill Omen summons a creature a darkness. I'm confident players are going to enjoy that ability.

Warlocks get a wider range of Eldritch Invocations in XGtE, plus the Celestial and Hexblade options. Players and GMs familiar with the Blackrazor sword, which is even featured in one of the story options for Betrayal at Baldur's Gate, will recognize the latter.

War Wizards are mentioned in SCAG but only get a full class option in XGtE. They were discussed more thoroughly in part one of the Xanathar review.

As someone who has been DMing 5th edition since the first public play tests, the class options in XGtE make me really want to switch to playing. Each enriches the PHB options thoughtfully, widening game options for players and DMs, especially when combined with the "This Is Your Life" section and class background options in the same chapter.

Note that errata for XGtE is being compiled at the bottom of the page for Xanathar’s Guide to Everything though as of this writing, only two items are cited.

contributed by Beth Rimmels
 

log in or register to remove this ad

Beth Rimmels

Beth Rimmels

Chaosmancer

Legend
I'm one of the older players, though I had a decade or two off. The game isn't about the mechanics. Those just alter how to tell if what you want to do works or not. My Barbarian player... was a folk hero dwarf who played really nice to everyone, but was actually a racist. He was nice to other races because if they did ANYTHING of value, then they seemed like the most impressive example of that worthless race ever, and he should encourage that individual. Stop playing the game, and start creating the story. D&D is about making a story where you control only a small part of it. It's not for sharing with others, it's just for the group. This is how us Old folks make those "best friends" that you have as kids. There is no way to get those as a responsible adult; closest you can get outside D&D seems will revolve around substance abuse. Create the story. You character can be crap. It can be virtually worthless and hardly use the mechanics. Develop the character, and fit that character to the mechanics. My Barbarian was a dwarf only because it seemed like the best race to be a cheerful racist that feels his racism is fully justified. Long lived, proud race. The character you make should be easily ported into ANY version because the mechanics should not be the foundation of it's creation. You pick spells and such based on the character where it is at the time (because it should grow and change based on what it goes through in the game). My bard did not start out opposed to charm spells... it became that. It refused GREATER invisibility because damn it... awesome things should be SEEN to be done.
The mechanics are there to serve the personality you create. If you can't make a beast master ranger awesome... you've simply failed to come up with a great personality theme to compliment one. That's not a problem... I'm sure you've got more than enough great ideas and you won't live long enough to play them all. We don't need more spells/classes/subclasses to make more fun mechanics. We just get them because they were spawned from good character ideas, and they inspire others to have good character ideas. Create the story, and make it fun.

I heard about a guy's character... it was a fighter, that WANTED to be a paladin. He was not going to multi-class... this was not a mechanics thing; it was a character thing. His CHARACTER wanted to be a paladin, but simply was not in the spotlight of any deity. He had to shun off any attempts by the DM or other players to turn him into a paladin several times. He did not want his character to succeed in this. It made for a great story, this mildly tragic tale of this guy. And that game was better than any mechanics could ever provide. Mechanics don't make the game. The story you create makes the game.


I don't disagree with anything you said.

But how many times did that guy play a Fighter than wanted to be a Paladin after that?

How many times have you played a cheerful Dwarven Racist? OR a Bard who refused to bend the minds of others on principle?

I played a Storm Sorcerer Teifling Jeweler and part of his quest was making a necklace worthy of his goddess. I don't think I could end up playing that guy again. His story is done and I don't feel a desire to reboot it.

Same with my poor Gnome Cleric.

But, there are plenty of other characters and personalities for both you and me that seem like they'd be a ton of fun and we're excited to play.

However, their are people on these forums who while you weren't playing, were still playing. You took 10 to 20 years off from the game, but they didn't. And so, IMO, a lot of them are pulling from a far smaller pool of personalities and characters, because they've already done the concepts they are interested in trying. And, people almost always play what they are most interested in first, which means that after playing for 30 years straight, some people are down to playing characters they don't like, or rehashing the mechanics of old characters.
 

log in or register to remove this ad




Aldarc

Legend
It does have some fluff and flavour too, not as much as I'd like, but some. It should have had a section like in the SCAG about fitting the subclasses into various settings.
But then they would not have had any room for the list of names! :eek:
 

ccs

41st lv DM
I wonder if part of the problem people are having is that they are (pardon my phrasing) too old.

I've found there are a lot of people on these forums who are much older than me and have a much longer experience playing DnD. Not only does that lead to being more set in your expectations about the game, but you've generally played the character stories you are most interested in multiple times if you've been playing the game since the 80's

The problem isn't age. It's one of imagination/lack of imagination. Some of us simply have higher imagination scores than others. ; )
Myself for ex: I've been playing this game since Chistmas break 1980. If I limited myself to playing ONLY 1e fighters I'd never run out of character ideas. But I actively play 1e, 5e, & PF and although, yes, I've run plenty of fighters, I'm open to playing every other class.
I won't live long enough to play everything rolling through my head.
My buddy Sean though, playing nearly as long?
He topped out at 3 characters (and 2 personalities) A human (or Asimar) Paladin, an elf ranger, & a wizard.

Likewise I've seen plenty of players who've been playing for far
Less time than myself who's imagination virtually stops at the pile of stats, modifiers, & powers listed on their sheets.
That they're playing an Elf or whatever doesn't mean anything to them beyond what stat gets modded. That line labeled name? Irrelevant.
Plenty of DMs as well - go read the thread about how much backstory.


[QUOTE =Chaosmancer;7286416]addition to that, some of us (this includes me to a degree) have a hard time getting excited about certain classes. I'll probably never end up playing a "pet class" excepting the Hexblade because I want to play a Hexblade for other reasons. But Beast master ranger? Never. I'd also never play a Frenzy barbarian in a lengthy campaign. The mechanics of some classes just turn us off and/or don't fit the style of play we prefer. [/QUOTE]

Oh definitely. Sometimes there's a class or race or archetype that just doesn't do it for you. You look at it & go "I got nothing (yet)". Sometimes it's the concept, sometimes the mechanics.
Sometimes both. And sometimes you simply haven't had that good idea yet.
Myself this list includes:
Psionics - I'm meh on psychic characters to start with, always have been. And I've yet to see set od D&D/D20 psionics rules I like. So no Psionics for me.
5e sorcerers - I've yet to have that character idea that'll make me choose this class. And reading it mechanically doesn't inspire anything in me either.
Same with the 3x warlock. (Now the 5e Warlock on the other hand :))
 
Last edited by a moderator:

Gimul

Explorer
No it's not, it's a good rule. It means the designers of future D&D products can design new character features without worrying if feature X will be overpowered if combined with Y from Drizzt's Guide to killing stuff and Z from Raistlin's Guide to Magic.
Eldritch Knights, Arcane Tricksters and Bladelocks might very well disagree considering they are fairly tightly restricted by all of the "gish" style cantrips only appearing in SCAG. Especially considering the (#dubious) generally held consensus that any non-material using somatic requirement, requires a free hand (as opposed to a held/wielded focus).

Sent from my SM-N950U using Tapatalk
 



Azzy

ᚳᚣᚾᛖᚹᚢᛚᚠ
Please not that again.

The PHB+1 rule is not a thing outside the AL.[/URL]

Actually....

Player's Handbook Plus One
You should think about which products players can use to create a character. The Adventurers League specifies that a player can use the Player’s Handbook and one other official D&D source, such as a book or a PDF, to create a character. This restriction ensures that players don’t need to own a lot of books to make a character and makes it easier for DMs to know how all the characters in the campaign work. Since a DM in a shared campaign must deal with a broad range of characters, rather than the same characters each week, it can be difficult to track all the interactions and abilities possible through mixing options freely. We strongly recommend this rule for any shared campaign.

While it's not something that's part of the standard game (unless a particular DM/group decides otherwise), it IS strongly suggested for shared campaigns.
 

Remove ads

Remove ads

Top