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.

 

[Parmandur]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

Did the Warlock invocation Kiss of Mephistopheles made the final cut?