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

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.

 

[Guest 6801328]

'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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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?