The Actual Table of Contents for Xanathar's Guide to Everything

A lot of good stuff there.

Of course, on the DM side, a lot of stuff is not there, but I like what I see.

Actually, one of the most useful things will be the appendix of sample names.

 

[hejtmane]

Made worse by the fact that nearly the entire book was reprints of Dragon articles. So if you already had the mags, there was very little point in buying the book.

I have an original copy of Unearth Arcana I ended up with I did not buy that one we split buying them but I ended up with it and I bought the Oriental adventures book when that one came out

 

[R_Chance]

Made worse by the fact that nearly the entire book was reprints of Dragon articles. So if you already had the mags, there was very little point in buying the book.

I bought UA, the hardback was a lot more durable than the magazines. I have all my Dragon/ Strategic Review magazines boxed and bagged Iirc, there are three Dragons I didn't get (I was buying at the FLGS and they sold out a couple of issues). I did photocopy some articles that were used heavily. Then, when they put out the Dragon Magazine Archive on CD Rom I picked that up. 250 issues of TD and all the SRs. I might pick up a couple of PDFs of the missing issues and a few later issues at some point. I miss that magazine...

 

[MechaPilot]

3e pretty much had the best spell list presentation of the editions. Could use a bit of tweaking, but was pretty good.

3e was good. But, for quick reference during play 4e is the hands-down winner in my book. I mean it's not even close. 3e could have a relevant mechanic buried in paragraphs of text, but 4e put all the relevant mechanics front and center for easy reference.

 

[Erechel]

I have my concerns: why there are in this book so many previously published subclasses, as the rogue Mastermind or Storm sorcery? There are a lot of spells also that already were in the Elemental Evil Companion. There is also the cleric's domains, that I didn't quite like in prior versions in the UA. I believe that this book may have serious balancing issues.

 

[Parmandur]

3e was good. But, for quick reference during play 4e is the hands-down winner in my book. I mean it's not even close. 3e could have a relevant mechanic buried in paragraphs of text, but 4e put all the relevant mechanics front and center for easy reference.

But, then you have to play 4E. Pros and cons to every decision...

 

[Parmandur]

I have my concerns: why there are in this book so many previously published subclasses, as the rogue Mastermind or Storm sorcery? There are a lot of spells also that already were in the Elemental Evil Companion. There is also the cleric's domains, that I didn't quite like in prior versions in the UA. I believe that this book may have serious balancing issues.

YMMV on the content, but the balance looks solid: lots of mechanical playtesting.

 

[MechaPilot]

But, then you have to play 4E. Pros and cons to every decision...

4e was great. I loved it.

 

[Parmandur]

4e was great. I loved it.

And good for you: however, the element cited (powers organization and notation) was one of the biggest turnoffs versus older editions or the 5E approach for me.

 

[MechaPilot]

And good for you: however, the element cited (powers organization and notation) was one of the biggest turnoffs versus older editions or the 5E approach for me.

Would it really be such a turnoff if they'd placed the 4e style notation at the top (or bottom) of each spell entry as a quick-reference aid and used the 3e style for the paragraphs of description? Because that way you'd get the rules buried in paragraphs of text as you like and people like me would get the quick reference we'd like without having to shell out extra money for stupid spell cards.

 

[Parmandur]

Would it really be such a turnoff if they'd placed the 4e style notation at the top (or bottom) of each spell entry as a quick-reference aid and used the 3e style for the paragraphs of description? Because that way you'd get the rules buried in paragraphs of text as you like and people like me would get the quick reference we'd like without having to shell out extra money for stupid spell cards.

Natural language is always to be preferred, absolutely.