D&D 5E On the Sword Coast Adventurer's Guide

[Demetrios1453]

Some people want WotC to release books that they are not releasing.

So they are taking it out on SCAG.

This.

It's perfectly fine for what it is. My players and myself have already gotten good use out of it in just the few weeks it's been out (races, classes, deity domains, etc.). A whole bunch of criticism out there is not because what it is, but what it's not, which is a bit unfair.

I do have to place a smidgen of blame on WotC for this though - had it been explained a bit more clearly what SCAG was ahead of time (Something like "New to D&D or the Forgotten Realms, coming back after a long absence, or just interested knowing some of the changes that have occurred in the setting in the new edition? The Sword Coast Adventurers' Guide will make a great introduction for the region for players and DMs alike!"), a lot of the criticism could have been preemptively blunted.

 

[Celtavian]

I have it and its about what I expected, which is fine. I'd play a Bladesinger or a dwarf battlerager. I just really wish the art direction had been more about evoking setting than people standing. The art just doesn't have much happening. I don't understand that. Why not show pictures of the places you are describing and heroes having adventures in those places. Why would anyone think a random picture of a "dude from Baldurs Gate" floating on the page would be inspiring to anyone?

I wonder if you would enjoy a Bladesinger or Battlerager when your archetype option was shown to be numerically inferior in nearly every area to other available options. For those of us that understand how mechanics work and how to min-max, the options in the SCAG are underwhelming and would perform in an inferior manner at the table in play against other common available options including other wizard and barbarian archetypes.

I still wonder what percentage of us are focused on the power of the mechanics versus the flavor of the mechanics and can stomach sitting at a table playing an inferior option while another player that makes more intelligent mechanical choices dominates combat. This is something I don't normally see WotC measuring. I would like to see their statistics on displeasure with material that proves to be mechanically inferior since a good portion of their player base is either mathematically able to determine the power of comparative options or at least takes note of their effectiveness within the group structure at the table. The Bladesinger was a great concept when created. But when its performance in actual play proves to be inferior, that will displease a percentage of the fan base that wants concepts to be both conceptually interesting and mechanically as effective as other options.

 

[pukunui]

I do have to place a smidgen of blame on WotC for this though - had it been explained a bit more clearly what SCAG was ahead of time (Something like "New to D&D or the Forgotten Realms, coming back after a long absence, or just interested knowing some of the changes that have occurred in the setting in the new edition? The Sword Coast Adventurers' Guide will make a great introduction for the region for players and DMs alike!"), a lot of the criticism could have been preemptively blunted.

They did do that. Too many people just weren't paying attention.

 

[ccs]

I really do like it although, I feel that it is a little expensive for what it does. To me, this book develops about 1/3 of what the PHB develops..so I'd like to see it priced closer to $20/25...rather than over $35/40 - even if it meant making a paperback version or softer cover version. For most people, I think it is the character options that sparkle.

Then shop around for the best deal.
For me this is a non-essential product. Meaning that it's on the list of things I might pick up if I ever see it cheap enough.
I got mine last week for $23 & some change through Amazon, paid in full via rewards pts. So essentially free. Yeah, frees cheap enough.

 

[Demetrios1453]

I wonder if you would enjoy a Bladesinger or Battlerager when your archetype option was shown to be numerically inferior in nearly every area to other available options. For those of us that understand how mechanics work and how to min-max, the options in the SCAG are underwhelming and would perform in an inferior manner at the table in play against other common available options including other wizard and barbarian archetypes.

I still wonder what percentage of us are focused on the power of the mechanics versus the flavor of the mechanics and can stomach sitting at a table playing an inferior option while another player that makes more intelligent mechanical choices dominates combat. This is something I don't normally see WotC measuring. I would like to see their statistics on displeasure with material that proves to be mechanically inferior since a good portion of their player base is either mathematically able to determine the power of comparative options or at least takes note of their effectiveness within the group structure at the table. The Bladesinger was a great concept when created. But when its performance in actual play proves to be inferior, that will displease a percentage of the fan base that wants concepts to be both conceptually interesting and mechanically as effective as other options.

Most players I know simply choose what appeals to them and run with it, without sitting down and doing the math. As long as it's not blatantly inferior (like doing half the damage of the rest of the choices), no one I know is really going to mind. The fun in the game for us is to play what is fun, not what is the most powerful.

And the situation you describe is inherently unstable. Either everything is going to have to be balanced perfectly, which is a virtually impossible task, or choices will be either better or worse. If, when introducing new choices, you only create more powerful ones, you're going to create a class arms race which will soon leave older choices in the dust. As a consequence, weaker choices must to be created in order to keep things from escalating out of hand. And, as I said, some people won't mind, as long as even the choices are interesting...

 

[Shasarak]

I have a feeling you're being facetious here, but I'm still not sure how to respond. None of those areas get much space in the book, probably because they're not on the Sword Coast, whereas Luskan gets three pages all to itself because a) it *is* on the Sword Coast and b) it features quite prominently in Sword Coast Legends. But you undoubtedly already knew that.

So it is almost like trying to compare two completely different products then?

Interestingly, after having a quick look through my 2nd edition Forgotten Realms boxed set, it really looks like the Sword Coast was almost an after thought with the vast amount of material being based around the Dales, Cormry and Sembia.

 

[pukunui]

So it is almost like trying to compare two completely different products then?

What is? You've lost me.

Interestingly, after having a quick look through my 2nd edition Forgotten Realms boxed set, it really looks like the Sword Coast was almost an after thought with the vast amount of material being based around the Dales, Cormry and Sembia.

Maybe that's because the Dales/Cormyr/Sembia was where Ed based his initial FR campaigns, so it had the most detail in the early days? Whereas the Sword Coast has gotten a lot more attention in recent times.

 

[Celtavian]

Most players I know simply choose what appeals to them and run with it, without sitting down and doing the math. As long as it's not blatantly inferior (like doing half the damage of the rest of the choices), no one I know is really going to mind. The fun in the game for us is to play what is fun, not what is the most powerful.

And the situation you describe is inherently unstable. Either everything is going to have to be balanced perfectly, which is a virtually impossible task, or choices will be either better or worse. If, when introducing new choices, you only create more powerful ones, you're going to create a class arms race which will soon leave older choices in the dust. As a consequence, weaker choices must to be created in order to keep things from escalating out of hand. And, as I said, some people won't mind, as long as even the choices are interesting...

Power within a range should be the goal. Most of the classes in the SCAG fall on the low end of that range. I would say that 20 to 30% less damage is noticeable to a player. They did a pretty good job of making options in the PHB pretty close in range with some classes doing more consistent high damage, some classes doing burst damage, and some classes providing a high level of support and utility. I was very impressed with the 5E PHB mechanical options. Even the Beastmaster has a decent damage/utility range. They dropped the ball on that archetype conceptually by not giving the beast enough autonomy and not allowing it to strike through magical resistance to damage, but the damage range is fairly well balanced compared to options without feats. I would have liked to see the mechanical options in a tighter range of power than they were. I sifted that book checking mechanical options for modeling concepts, there were so many inferior options that I couldn't justify a purchase. You would be better off making an elf Eldritch Knight or Fighter/Wizard for modeling a bladesinger than making a bladesinger. And that is disappointing in my opinion.

 

[Corpsetaker]

I never do the math when I am choosing a class and race. I always choose based on concept and flavour.

 

[Pauper]

I still wonder what percentage of us are focused on the power of the mechanics versus the flavor of the mechanics and can stomach sitting at a table playing an inferior option while another player that makes more intelligent mechanical choices dominates combat.

I'd talk to that player and get him (and it's always a 'him', in my experience) to lighten up on the min-maxing, because he's ruining the fun of the game.

I'm actually encouraged that WotC doesn't see the need to perpetually push the envelope of mechanics with ever-increasing power-creep in each new publication -- that Paizo continues to think that pushing power-creep is their business model is the biggest reason why I've lost pretty much all interest in Pathfinder.

--
Pauper