D&D 5E Xanathar's Guide to Everything: What subclasses made the cut?

[GarrettKP]

The definition of errata has nothing to do with official play; it’s not a term invented by WotC.

The dictionary defines it as “a list of corrected errors appended to a book or published in a subsequent issue of a journal”.

I’d agree that this doesn’t meet that definition. It’s an addition, not a change.

Correcting an error that changes a rule does make that old ruling unusable in official play. That was my point.

 

[Grant James Austin]

You misunderstand. An Errata makes the old rule unusable in official play. This does not do that. It lets you choose either or. It is not an Errata.

except that no it doesn't have to work in that myopically specific way. an edit that only adds text is still errata.

 

[variant]

What I want to know is if they plan on printing the revised ranger in a reprint of the PHB. I don't care what they call it when they publish it online.

 

[gyor]

Add College of Whispers made it.

 

[Parmandur]

Doesn't change the fact that its what is being done in any revision of any kind. Any revision that doesn't include a new edition printing.

again functionally identical. no difference of any kind in what your describing, works in exactly the same way.

also something that has already happened this edition as they changed what is or isn't a long rest in errata.

But there is no indication that a rules update will be a printing correction, nor have they changed any rules through errata (some wording clarification, but no changes). Errata is not for rules changes.

 

[Li Shenron]

Errata are errors from a previous printing that are being corrected in future printings. We already have the Errata for the core books, and aren't likely to see anymore.

WotC abused the word to mean "rewriting the rules" in previous editions, but are wisely avoiding that approach now.

Good reminder, but I think rather than WotC it was abused by gamers, probably because some of them thought the correct usage might have caused autism.

 

[MoonSong]

Sorc - think we might be done, the rest are all elementalists not sure if they are strong enough a theme on their own.
warlock - Hexblade good as confirmed. Maybe someday my Queen.
Wizard - Theurgy (war magic just sounded like the midpoint of abjuration evocation and eldritch night, where as theurgy is...

Digression- new word! n.n- Stone sorcerer isn't an actual elementalist, more of a gish. (And a swordmage?)On the other hand Theurge steps too hard on the Cleric and I could see War Mage as the token wizard addition. Speaking of that the exact words were "all classes except wizard get at least two new archetypes." General consensus is that wizard will get 1 new subclass, but could it be they get none?

 

[GarrettKP]

[video=youtube;VuZYqwz_-2M]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VuZYqwz_-2M&feature=youtu.be[/video]

Rogue Scout is next!

 

[flametitan]

Digression- new word! n.n- Stone sorcerer isn't an actual elementalist, more of a gish. (And a swordmage?)On the other hand Theurge steps too hard on the Cleric and I could see War Mage as the token wizard addition. Speaking of that the exact words were "all classes except wizard get at least two new archetypes." General consensus is that wizard will get 1 new subclass, but could it be they get none?

I thought that When Crawford said wizards don't get two, he also explicitly said they get one.

 

[Li Shenron]

Rogue Scout is next!

I must say that they are very good at presenting these archetypes with these videos... when I saw the Scout in UA I thought "it's just a wilderness rogue", but it does make a lot more sense as described by Crawford.

I know that a lot of people will hate the idea that the Scout is effectively meant to be the spell-less Ranger, for the simple fact that if you don't call it a Ranger, then it cannot be one... But the designers apparently aren't that tied to labels and are looking more at the substance, and the consequences of for example moving the Scout from Fighter to Rogue. Had it been a Fighter, it would have required some serious boost to skills in order to play well in the wild and with stealth, and this could have taken away too much design space from the subclass levels, while as a Rogue it already gets proficiencies and expertise. Also as a Fighter it would have had some possibly redundant baggage such as armor proficiencies (although thieves' tools may be redundant too for a scout). Certainly the Rogue is not as combat-heavy as the Fighter, but at least it has sneak attack and the mobility features to make it more than decent in a fight.