D&D General Is the SCAG Still Useful?

[pukunui]

Maybe it's because I've been taking another crack at reading the SCAG lately, but I think it suffers some of the organizational issues the 2014 DM's guide did. There's good stuff in here, especially if you're a bit of a gossip and want to get an idea or suggestion of what's going on behind the curtain with some of the bigger NPCs in the setting.

The problem is that, sometimes this information is tucked away in the player options section of the book rather than in a section where that NPC is located. As a GM doing session prep, that's a bit aggravating, and not useful for players who just want to explore class options.

I really liked the conversational, unreliable in-world narrator approach ~ in fact, I'll go so far as to say I prefer that approach to the pithy little comments from the books' title characters that they ended up going with instead.

My only real complaint with the SCAG was that it was too short! There were some things they playtested in the closed group, including rules for spellfire as a series of Supernatural Gifts, little rules for things like mages' arcane sigils, and even some subclasses (like a Beauty domain for clerics of Sune and the like). I know they were being extra cautious back then, so that's why so much got cut, but still ... the SCAG's not really that bad in and of itself. It just could have been so much better!

 

[Parmandur]

I really liked the conversational, unreliable in-world narrator approach. My only real complaint with the SCAG was that it was too short! There were some things they playtested in the closed group, like rules for Spellfire as a series of Supernatural Gifts (see Laeral Silverhand's stat block in Waterdeep: Dragon Heist to see what some of them were like), along with a few other minor rules (like rules for mages' unique arcane sigils) and some bigger stuff, like some subclasses (including a Beauty Domain for clerics of Sune and the like). I know they were being extra cautious back then, so that's why so much got cut, but still ... the SCAG's not really that bad. It just could have been so much better.

It is curious to consider alternate historys for early 5E design: what if they went a bit bigger with those early splats, or published the Elemental Ecil Player's Guide that was technically never canceled, or put the Arrificer and Mystic in Xanathar's along with mass combat rules...would 5E have been less successful? Hard to imagine it would have been a big problem at this point, but who knows.

 

[pukunui]

It is curious to consider alternate historys for early 5E design: what if they went a bit bigger with those early splats, or published the Elemental Ecil Player's Guide that was technically never canceled, or put the Arrificer and Mystic in Xanathar's along with mass combat rules...would 5E have been less successful? Hard to imagine it would have been a big problem at this point, but who knows.

There is SO MUCH good stuff in the alpha playtest version of the Elemental Evil books that I really wish had seen the light of day. I wish they'd just release it all as Unearthed Arcana if nothing else so people can just play around with it in its draft form.

This new iteration of spellfire is OK, but the Supernatural Gifts version was IMO so much better.

In addition to the aforementioned Beauty cleric domain, there was also a Justice cleric domain and various iterations of elemental cleric domains (I think they tried Air, Earth, Fire, and Water to start with, and then a later playtest packet had Sky and Sea domains instead). There were also some elemental-themed sorcerer and wizard subclasses (I think they were the same, just testing them on the two different chassis). There was a decent attempt at a warden druid circle, and the totem barbarian and four elements monk got additional elemental-themed options. There was also a better law enforcer background than the one we got in the SCAG. There were also a bunch of justice-themed cleric/paladin spells with names like Castigate and Denunciate. And so much more!

There were also some little things, like the Duergar's Invisibility and Enlarge traits recharging on a short rest if they're in the Underdark vs a long rest if they're not.


EDIT: In case anyone is wondering, I have an email from Chris Lindsay, from back when he was the WotC staffer in charge of the alpha playtesting program, stating that it's OK for me to talk about this really old stuff without violating my NDA. I just can't go into any detail or share the actual documents.

 

[Paul Farquhar]

Arrificer and Mystic

I tested both of those in actual play, and they were both really not fun. Rejecting them was the right decision. The artificer we ended up with is far more fun to play. Can’t speak for the psion yet oc.

 

[pukunui]

I tested both of those in actual play, and they were both really not fun. Rejecting them was the right decision. The artificer we ended up with is far more fun to play. Can’t speak for the psion yet oc.

How do you know what the final revised artificer is like? It's not out yet.

 

[Paul Farquhar]

How do you know what the final revised artificer is like? It's not out yet.

True, I’m going off the 2014 version and assuming the changes don’t break anything. The biggest issue with that early version is it didn’t have many options apart from to stand at the back and throw infinite acid bottles.

 

[Parmandur]

How do you know what the final revised artificer is like? It's not out yet.

I believe he means the Xanathar's Guide version that was rejected (still up on DMsGuild last I checked) versus the Rising from the Last War/Tasha version