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

[Mistwell]

They have clearly realized by now that enough gamers give them a free pass on a glacial release schedule.

Unless we start complaining en mass, there is no reason to not give away as little crunch as possible.



Sent from my C6603 using EN World mobile app

In case it's not clear from the people who have replied to this thread, a lot of people like fluff in their books, do not consider it useless like you do, and do not agree that crunch is what "counts" for a book. Your desires, once again, are not a substitute for reading the general list of desires from the fan population at large.

And this isn't a new debate. It's actually quite old. Monte Cook even entered the trenches once on this debate, concerning a forgotten realms release written by Sean K Reynolds that was intentionally MOSTLY fluff. A LOT of gamers like fluff in their published books from WOTC. In fact in my personal opinion one reason for the success of 5e is the increased fluff content, relative to 4e, which enhances the "Feel" of the edition in a manner similar to older editions. They ARE book-books, and not just rule-books, and the words surrounding the rules are as important or more important than the rules themselves for the portrayal of the content.

Finding a balance between crunch and fluff certainly involves both some art and science, but the position you appear to be staking out that "Fluff=Useless" is not a well-shared position based on years of experience over this old issue. So, while you don't have to AGREE, and you are free to complain all you want (though I'd suggest tweeting your complaint to Mearls directly is much more effective than posting it here) it sure would be nice if you acknowledged your view is not necessarily everyone's view on this topic. You're not likely to get an en mass complaint, and seem more likely to be leading a charge that the crowd behind you is going to step back from rather than follow. You might get a better response though if you tried to articulate WHY you feel crunch is so important and fluff so lacking in importance. You seem to just assume everyone thinks the same on this issue and inherently understands why you think the way you do about this issue.

 

[Mouseferatu]

I'll just once again add my voice to those who really want to see knight and samurai polished and made official, in addition to, or even instead of, the cavalier as it currently stands.

I know I'm not likely to get that wish, but... There it is.

 

[guachi]

I'm hugely baffled by those who try to claim that TftYP is a FR product. Lost Shrine, White Plume Mountain, Against the Giants, and Tomb of Horrors are stated to be from Greyhawk in the text. Sunless Citadel, while being 3e and not explicitly Greyhawk, still has references to Pelor. Only Forge of Fury is really setting neutral, and only Dead in Thay is explicitly set in the Realms. So with one dungeon and the introduction (and even there they give a reasonable Greyhawk alternative) set in the Realms, and with four, arguably five, dungeons set in Greyhawk, it's still somehow a completely FR product. Interesting math going on there...

And this proves my point. Even in products that shouldn't have any reason to be explicitly linked to the FR over some other setting get branded with FR titles.

It's like calling black bean dip 'black bean hummus' because 'hummus' is a kewl thing. By definition (it's right there in the word 'hummus'!) if your product doesn't contain chickpeas, it isn't hummus. The wording is added solely for branding purposes.

That's exactly what's happened to 5e. FR branding is on products that have no real reason to have FR (and FR only) branding. Pointing out that the branding is only in the title and one page is actually worse. It's a sign that WotC feels obligated to brand things Forgotten Realms. Because 5e, outside of the core three products, is essentially branded as the FR RPG.

 

[bedir than]

I hope beyond hope that we get at least one pacifist. There are fun stories to tell around that. I think that goes for classes with mounts too. Sometimes it is fun to play DnD without dungeons, or even dragons. Neither are necessary for some of the greatest stories told within this hobby's history.

 

[GarrettKP]

Jeremy Crawford confirmed on Twitter that some SCAG subclasses will be reprinted here. He said the 25+ number are all new ones and not reprints, but that some SCAG reprints are present in addition to the 25+ new Subclasses, presumably to make them work with the AL +1 rule.

 

[Edwin Suijkerbuijk]

[MENTION=54413]sands[/MENTION]_Tavares I get most of it being in UA before(and that's a good way to ensure quality), but is there any NEW subclasses in Xanathar?
[MENTION=4036]Jeremy[/MENTION]ECrawford The 25+ new subclasses in Xanathar's Guide have all appeared in UA at some point. They're joined by a few subclasses from the SCAG.
[MENTION=4036]Jeremy[/MENTION]ECrawford The SCAG subclasses in XGE are few and compact and were very popular. Their inclusion has no affect on how much new design we've done.

 

[Demetrios1453]

[MENTION=54413]sands[/MENTION]_Tavares I get most of it being in UA before(and that's a good way to ensure quality), but is there any NEW subclasses in Xanathar?
[MENTION=4036]Jeremy[/MENTION]ECrawford The 25+ new subclasses in Xanathar's Guide have all appeared in UA at some point. They're joined by a few subclasses from the SCAG.
[MENTION=4036]Jeremy[/MENTION]ECrawford The SCAG subclasses in XGE are few and compact and were very popular. Their inclusion has no affect on how much new design we've done.

I was wondering if we would see some reprints from SCAG, given the +1 rule. I'm fine that they will be appearing in XGtE, since they won't be included in the 25+ new ones we've been told about.

My guess on those that we will see (in decreasing order of probability) would be Swashbuckler, Storm Sorcerer, Arcana Cleric, and perhaps one or both of the monk subclasses and/or the totem options for barbarian.

 

[biomante]

Hello everyone.

Sorry if this has been asked/posted before. If all upcoming subclasses in XGTE have appeared in UA at some point, that means that rogues will only get the inquisitive and the scout... am I right? , that would be a bummer. I was hoping for new and cool rogue subclasses, like daggerspell mage ...

 

[Rellott]

I was wondering if we would see some reprints from SCAG, given the +1 rule. I'm fine that they will be appearing in XGtE, since they won't be included in the 25+ new ones we've been told about.

My guess on those that we will see (in decreasing order of probability) would be Swashbuckler, Storm Sorcerer, Arcana Cleric, and perhaps one or both of the monk subclasses and/or the totem options for barbarian.

I'd bet the bladesinger before the monks, to take advantage of new spells - and I bet they'll reprint the few spells from SCAG, too.

 

[gyor]

And this proves my point. Even in products that shouldn't have any reason to be explicitly linked to the FR over some other setting get branded with FR titles.

It's like calling black bean dip 'black bean hummus' because 'hummus' is a kewl thing. By definition (it's right there in the word 'hummus'!) if your product doesn't contain chickpeas, it isn't hummus. The wording is added solely for branding purposes.

That's exactly what's happened to 5e. FR branding is on products that have no real reason to have FR (and FR only) branding. Pointing out that the branding is only in the title and one page is actually worse. It's a sign that WotC feels obligated to brand things Forgotten Realms. Because 5e, outside of the core three products, is essentially branded as the FR RPG.

Yeah another example is Volo's Guide, where Volo basically only makes cameos throughout it, and the FR content is minimal. It's imagine seeing adds for a TV show that brags about (insert favour celebrity) starring, and then you watch and find out they are only an occasional guest actor on it.