I remember when people used to put sentences and everything in their posts. It was a golden era.
Based on previous information and the preview, am I correct that the SCAG subclasses (such as Bladesinger) will be in Xanathars but that the four "weapon cantrips" (like Green Flame Blade) are not?
If so that makes the PH+1 rule tricky for characters using those cantrips. And is kind of disappointing for those of us who wanted everything supplemental in one book.
Now I am all for expanding the Wizard Spell list and am grateful there are more elemental spells. One thing that bothers me about wizards though are some of the features of the various schools are severely limited due to poor spell choice. For instance, the wizard with the School of Conjuration tradition can conjure forth more powerful creatures with their spells. BUT there are few spells in the Wizard spell list in the School of Conjuration that actually conjure creatures.
Based on previous information and the preview, am I correct that the SCAG subclasses (such as Bladesinger) will be in Xanathars but that the four "weapon cantrips" (like Green Flame Blade) are not?
If so that makes the PH+1 rule tricky for characters using those cantrips. And is kind of disappointing for those of us who wanted everything supplemental in one book.
So, wizards getting demons and succubi are a sacred cow now? Bleh. I suppose its unavoidable for story reasons - I can't imagine them changing Tasha/Iggwilv class or making her unable to do demons for instance. Still, it will really irk me how warlocks are crap with fiend and fey summons.Demon summoning has been a wizard thing for a long time, and in 4e warlocks got devils and wizards got demons (except that someone forgot the succubus was a devil in 4e and gave it to wizards). I would be annoyed if none of the demon/devil things made it to the warlock list though (as happened in the Old Black Magic UA).
I never saw the early playtest sorcerer. But, as things stand, I basically find the current idea of a dragon sorcerer to be a let down; I want it to be more like the 4e dragon sorcerer who could do illusion claws and wings and breaths. If we get something that's closer to the sorcerer I remember, I'm all for it. Anything is pretty much better than what we have now.I am normally pro-sorcerer primary spells, but I have a hard time with any dragon-related spells after the playtest, because if we wanted the sorcerer to do more dragon stuff that the wizard couldn't, we had our chance, and we squandered in chasing after a dream that somehow they were going to clone 3x magic into 5e, even though there was no evidence in support of it and a lot of evidence against it.
Summoning is a subsection of conjuration. In 5e, conjuration means you teleport/create something. Monsters are a subset of something. Admittedly, monsters are what most people (including me) want to teleport/create, but it isn't the school of summoning, so there isn't a requirement that you have the ability (or spells) to summon monsters, just that you have the ability (spells) to summon something.
What I refer to specifically is the "Durable Summons" feature of the Conjuration wizard. CREATURES you summon gain 30 extra hp. That's nice but there were like only 2-3 spells (if even that many) for the wizard in the PHB that actually summon a creature. Not very practical in my opinion.
Only 4 of the SCAG subclasses will be. And none of them will be any of the subclasses with Realms flavour (PDK is confirmed not to be in, and Bladesinger is almost certainly not going to be, as Bladesinging tradition is heavily associated with the Realms)
Is anyone else really disappointed there's really a lack of new abjuration spells? I know it's not the favorite spell school for most (it is mine), but c'mon....
The Bladesinger and the Battlerager are setting-neutral (having originated in the 2e products The Complete Book of Elves and The Complete Book of Dwarves (respectively).