D&D 5E Escapist article on SCAG is Brutal.

[Shasarak]

The more classes you add, the more spells you add, the more material you add, the more complex the game becomes. That's unavoidable. If WotC started banging out splats filled with crunch, we're back into 3e land where you have a character created using material from three or four different books, often times creating balance issues. All of that results in Mathfinder.

I'm very, very glad that they're refusing to go down that road.

The Game is already so complicated that it requires a DM to run it. I am sure he would be able to cope with a Player casting Booming Blade.

It really is just not that hard.

 

[Shasarak]

It's not "different definitions," it's just "definitions."

If you use definitions to guide your word choices, then the word you should have been using up to now is persistence, not patience.

It does not bother you that Persistence is a synonym of Patience?

But hey, on the Internet a Campaign guide is the same as a Maths book so there could actually be a difference.

 

[Hussar]

The Game is already so complicated that it requires a DM to run it. I am sure he would be able to cope with a Player casting Booming Blade.

It really is just not that hard.

And, that's exactly what we got with the SCAG. A player might, as was mentioned before, use a tiny fraction of the book and every player in the group might use a different small fraction. Yet, very, very little complexity is added.

Compare with, say, 3.5, where you might have a player using the FRCS, the spell compendium and Complete Arcane. I hope you'll agree that this adds significant levels of complexity to the game. Never minding that it serves as a huge barrier to getting new players into the game when they get confronted with the wall of books that games accumulate.

I have zero interest in going back to the bad old days where the solution to every problem is "core only". No thanks. Let's stay at core only and those that want more complexity can make their own rules. How many classes are there in Pathfinder now? How many spells? How many magic items? How many feats?

Is it actually possible for one person to know the rules of Pathfinder? 4e suffered the same problem and so did 3e. It was pretty much impossible for one person to be familiar with every element in the game. Now? It's not a huge deal to know, at least in broad strokes, how everything in the game works. Everything you add to the game just adds complexity. The more complexity you add, the more difficult the game is to learn and run and the easier it is for the game to suffer balance issues.

So, yeah, a Campaign Guide is a synonym for a Math Book. It's just another layer of complexity.

 

[Jeremy E Grenemyer]

It does not bother you that Persistence is a synonym of Patience?

Why should it? It's quite possible to be persistent and impatient at the same time.

Do you have anything in the way of historical information about the Realms fan base as it existed over the last six to eight years to offer up that would give me reason to be bothered?

EDIT: Come to think of it, the only two Realms fans I can think of that could well be described as patient are R.A. Salvatore and Ed Greenwood, because of their decision to wait out the 4E Realms and to bank on WotC coming to them for help on how to right the ship (which is just what happened).

But hey, on the Internet a Campaign guide is the same as a Maths book so there could actually be a difference.

Hussar's explanation is better than mine. I hope you give it a read.

 

[garnuk]

Wild elves are" Sy'tel'quessir and wood Elves are Or'tel'quessir

 

[Celtavian]

Wild elves are" Sy'tel'quessir and wood Elves are Or'tel'quessir

Was this printed in the new Sword Coast book?

 

[IlluminatedSeraph]

[MENTION=6670153]gyor[/MENTION]

So, just for the record, virtually all of the settings you named (excluding Cavaliers and Pugmire, which are actually creator-owned by folks at Onyx) were originally designed by the folks who are now working at and/or running Onyx. OP is a great company, and I love them utterly to death, but they're basically a shop that was spun up by the folks who used to work at White Wolf when the main company moved on to digital game development and being an IP subsidiary. The D&D equivalent wouldn't be hiring Onyx Path, it'd be Monte Cook setting up an independent contractor to develop material for D&D....

Oh, wait, that already happened. Anyway, the point being - WotC has been very clear about wanting to be the people developing and selling D&D. As such, an OP-style spin off company is really not the solution they're looking for.

 

[garnuk]

Was this printed in the new Sword Coast book?

No, in the new Sword Coast book, both the Wood and Wild elves were called "Sy'tel'quessir" I imagine its a typo.

Though if you think its not a typo, it leads to some awesome speculation that since Wild Elves are described as having lost all their traditions, and Wood elves are described as being less magical, then that means Moon and Sun elves see Wild and wood elves as the same thing

 

[Tia Nadiezja]

The more classes you add, the more spells you add, the more material you add, the more complex the game becomes. That's unavoidable. If WotC started banging out splats filled with crunch, we're back into 3e land where you have a character created using material from three or four different books, often times creating balance issues. All of that results in Mathfinder.

I'm very, very glad that they're refusing to go down that road.

This is not actually inherently correct, and 5e's basic design in fact vastly mitigates this. Why?

Because it expands in ways that are generally sandboxed from each other.

Multiclassing aside (it's both totally an optional rule and generally more trouble than it's worth), you get one class, ever. You get one subclass, ever (and even if you multiclass, the subclasses of each of your main classes are cordoned off - you can't multiclass Evoker/Bladesinger, and if you multiclass Bladesinger/Dragon Sorcerer your Dragon Sorcerer class abilities generally don't apply to your Bladesinger spells). So each new subclass is a whole new set of concepts, which largely don't interact with other subclasses or classes. And new subclasses are the primary way 5e expands.

Spells in 5e are easy to see interactions between - due to concentration, there generally aren't interactions between spells, and what interactions there are usually need multiple spellcasters to set up.

Feats are the only area I see ever becoming really problematic - they've become problematic in both previous editions that have included them. They started problematic in both previous editions that included them. But you'll notice we've gotten precisely zero new feats, and I expect new feats to be rare even if they kick up the rate of introducing new mechanics.

So in 5e, the math doesn't get more complicated as you expand the list of options. It simply opens up new concepts for people to use as characters.

 

[Prism]

I'm not saying the gaming table shouldn't but this book. I'm saying players shouldn't buy this book. Because no matter how many players are in the game, they'll never use more than 3.75 pages (and some would likely use a lot less).

Well, a dwarf battlerager from one of the northern holds would probably get direct information from at least 10 pages..

Why would that player need detailed information about a place his character has never been? Wouldn't it be better to learn that during gameplay rather than in reading a book?

I guess that's up to the player/character. Some characters might be well traveled and can use the players guide as a way of representing that knowledge. Some players simply like to know more about the world they live in before they start. Others prefer to know less.

If you want to run a game as a DM with more mystery to the world, best not run the Realms unless you base it in a more remote location to the east or south