TheRPGSite

I got this book two days ago.

I was disappointed by the fact there was so much reprint material from other books in this book. Specifically in the different progression paths for the character classes. It certainly lessened my enthusiasm for this book after reading it.

That said. It is a good book. A really decent expansion on the core three.

I just can't help having a lingering feeling that it could have been a lot better.

I recognized the Mastermind and Swashbuckler paths for the Rogue from SCAG (although I haven't compared them to see if they are exact matches), but what else was a reprint?

Got mine today. Just started reading it. Really a blast to see all the stuff we playtested finally in print.

The reprint aspect is to keep consistent the Adventure League rules of only allowing people to use core books plus one single outside ('splatbook') source.

5e?

As a GM I like books that consolidate information between one set of covers. Fewer books for me to cart from session to session.  That said, there is a point at which I don't want to buy the same information yet again.

Quote from: HappyDaze;1009702I recognized the Mastermind and Swashbuckler paths for the Rogue from SCAG (although I haven't compared them to see if they are exact matches), but what else was a reprint?

I recognized several of the Sorcerer types from other books.

Storm Sorcery is from the SCAG, but what books are Shadow Magic or Divine Soul from?

Quote from: Kane;1009774Storm Sorcery is from the SCAG, but what books are Shadow Magic or Divine Soul from?

Alot of these are from the playtest packets.

Mariner, Swashbuckler and Storm sorcerer are from an early UA packet. Waterborne Adventures.

Quote from: Kane;1009774Storm Sorcery is from the SCAG, but what books are Shadow Magic or Divine Soul from?

Free online supplements I believe.

Many of them were taken through Unearthed Arcana playtesting, but it's nice having them all collected into one hardback volume, while sub-classes like the Swashbuckler and Mastermind were too good to leave out.

Overall, the new options are a lot of fun, with a few that people may like more than others of course. The Ranger sub-classes seem a little under-defined (as is a problem for the Ranger Class in general for 5E, to be honest). The Hexblade for the Warlock is a beast, but it begs the question why anybody would want to choose any other option for the Pact of the Sword at least and I'm not sure I like the vague notion of the 'sword from Shadowfell' as a patreon concept. People may also find the War Wizard makes the Evoker a bit redundant too. Still, there are plenty of other really good options in the book.

Quote from: TrippyHippy;1009781Many of them were taken through Unearthed Arcana playtesting, but it's nice having them all collected into one hardback volume, while sub-classes like the Swashbuckler and Mastermind were too good to leave out.

All of them were, at one point.  However, Willie The Duck is correct as to why they reprinted the class information, it's for AL.

Quote from: TrippyHippy;1009781Overall, the new options are a lot of fun, with a few that people may like more than others of course. The Ranger sub-classes seem a little under-defined (as is a problem for the Ranger Class in general for 5E, to be honest). The Hexblade for the Warlock is a beast, but it begs the question why anybody would want to choose any other option for the Pact of the Sword at least and I'm not sure I like the vague notion of the 'sword from Shadowfell' as a patreon concept. People may also find the War Wizard makes the Evoker habit redundant too. Still, there are plenty of other really good options in the book.

According to an AL source, they're still working on the Ranger update.  There was a release for the Unearthed Arcana that rewrote a lot of the class (which I use in my home game) but WoTC seems to not be happy with what they have.  I've heard that when they do release their changes it MAY (no guarantees) be free.  And official for those who care about that.

Also, according to the same source, the original Pact of The Blade Warlock was meant for those who wanted to multiclass Warlock and Fighter, specifically.  There seems that there's a rather sizeable contingent who wanted more multiclassing options, and are vocal enough for WoTC to cater to them.

As for myself, I don't get the appeal of it, but I'm not going to tell someone no.

YMMV as always.

Now, as for my opinion on the book, as an AL DM, I needed to pick it up to stay current, but I find myself enjoying it more than I had hoped.  Things like the character class options for background reasons, for those of us who need an idea to expand on.  The common magic items are cool, even if some are more actually useful than others, I like that some items, like Heward's Handy Spice Pouch really do nothing but, if you'll excuse the pun, add flavour to any campaign.

The expanded traps are also nice to help give ideas.

Quote from: TrippyHippy;1009781Many of them were taken through Unearthed Arcana playtesting, but it's nice having them all collected into one hardback volume, while sub-classes like the Swashbuckler and Mastermind were too good to leave out.

More to the point than just having them together in a hardback, is that we wouldn't have ever gotten the free playtest material if it wasn't contributing towards the end goal of this fungible product.

Quote from: TrippyHippy;1009781The Hexblade for the Warlock is a beast, but it begs the question why anybody would want to choose any other option for the Pact of the Sword at least and I'm not sure I like the vague notion of the 'sword from Shadowfell' as a patreon concept. People may also find the War Wizard makes the Evoker a bit redundant too. Still, there are plenty of other really good options in the book.

The Hexblade seems (to me) clearly an attempt to salvage single-class pact-of-blade warlock. It is clearly better than all the other bladelock options, undoubtedly deliberately so, and does so quite well. It is still not overpowered (especially compared to the other cha-based gush build, the sorcerer-paladin multiclasses). I am disappointed however, in that you get much of the benefit (for one-handed weapons) with just a 1-level dip, making them entirely too tempting of a dip for many cha-based builds. And yes, the fluff for the hexblade is hot garbage (actually no, it's just gibberish).

The war wizard will never take one thing from the evoker: the evoker is still the best choice for anyone who hasn't played a wizard (or D&D) before, and need a low-mechanical-decision-making character with few-bad-options in their what-to-do decision tree more than they need truly good ones.

Quote from: Christopher Brady;1009782According to an AL source, they're still working on the Ranger update.  There was a release for the Unearthed Arcana that rewrote a lot of the class (which I use in my home game) but WoTC seems to not be happy with what they have.  I've heard that when they do release their changes it MAY (no guarantees) be free.  And official for those who care about that.

Any idea what isn't satisfactory? I think some of the low level abilities can be, if very loosely interpreted, make the UA_update ranger omniscient in the wilderness. Other than that I don't see anything in it that falls outside of the overall 5e power variance.

QuoteNow, as for my opinion on the book, as an AL DM, I needed to pick it up to stay current, but I find myself enjoying it more than I had hoped.  Things like the character class options for background reasons, for those of us who need an idea to expand on.  The common magic items are cool, even if some are more actually useful than others, I like that some items, like Heward's Handy Spice Pouch really do nothing but, if you'll excuse the pun, add flavour to any campaign.

The expanded traps are also nice to help give ideas.

I think I'm of the same mind. I would have preferred more page count dedicated towards the downtime stuff and flavor stuff and so on and so forth, but I understand the new character crunch options is what sells books. However, just the existence of those common magic items and downtime activity charts and so on give me hope. There's the bones of that OSR/modern D&D hybrid I want so much buried in this book, which along with Tomb of Annihilation has made this a really good year for me coming from WotC.

Pact of the Blade is fine as-is. There's nothing in the world stopping you from taking both Agonizing Blast and the weapon invocations. Where it fails is when people think they should be able to completely stop using their core Warlock powers thanks to having a sword.  If one-dimensional builds are flatly superior at your table to characters who are more broadly effective, your DM is going easy on you. And that's fine, but it doesn't really fly in my games. Notably, I recently ran a short adventure where the party decided to be 3 casters and a paladin. The lack of any ability to stop monsters from waltzing by the front line thanks to the "front line" being "one guy" caused them serious pain the entire time.

This whole discussion gives me that late-3E, fin-de-siecle feeling. Is there anything in this book other than kewl pwrzz class builds?

Quote from: Larsdangly;1009837This whole discussion gives me that late-3E, fin-de-siecle feeling. Is there anything in this book other than kewl pwrzz class builds?

Absolutely there is. Lots. There are downtime activity rules (making stuff, finding stuff, social interaction charts), character motivation stuff (rivals rules), tool use ideas, extra random encounter listings, more on traps, awarding magic items, shared-DM campaigns, minor magic items (i.e. items with few game-related abilities but flavor). Obviously an experienced DM could do these without help, but then again an experienced DM barely needs game rules.

To be clear, there is power creep, and nothing in the book is exactly filling a had-to-be-filled hole in an otherwise incomplete ruleset. But for what it is (a 'splatbook'), it's fairly decent.

That sounds good. The two things I like most about 5E are structured backgrounds and structured downtime activities - they both add something substantial to the game. More sub classes that just add to the overall grade inflation and fragmentation of the game do not.

It was a good mix of stuff for players and DMs.  I think it was a great release.

I like that some tool proficiencies allow you to do stuff on short/long rests or give bonuses to the exploration phase.  The downtime rules are much better now and the rival/complication system is great for fleshing out a base of operations or cast of supporting characters.

The HexBlade was expressly designed to allow players to play Elric - a physical weakling who powers himself through dark pacts and the use of a demonic sword to become an agent of destruction. Hence we get Charisma bonuses to attacks and damage (allowing Strength to become a dump stat), medium armour and melee weapons. Hexblade also allows the character to select an opponent, curse them and gain HP upon their demise. Coupled with some spells and invocations, they can cause massive damage and other bonuses. You can build up other Warlocks of other patreons to become good fighters, again through invocations and the like, but why would you when you have them already laid out for you?

The other Patreons just give out an expanded spell list and a single feature - the Fiend has their stealing HP from slain opponents feature stolen by and enhanced by the Hexblade. The Shadowfell is also so vague that it essentially gives a pass on having to deal with the more awkward aspects of a Faustian pact that you get with other patreons too, notwithstanding that it's much less thematic in story terms. I like the Warlock and Hexblade concept, but there is an issue of fairness and consistency.

I just saw the full TOC for this. It looks like it has a bunch of cool stuff, but wtf were they thinking devoting nearly 20 pages to character names (!?!). That is simply nuts. They couldn't think of anything better to stick in a book like this?

20, really? It doesn't seem like that many. Either way, it's near the end and others  (https://www.amazon.com/Gygaxs-Extraordinary-Gygaxian-Fantasy-Worlds/dp/1931275564)have thought it a good idea. It does speak to who their target audience is--new or lightly-involved gamers who do not have 2-20 yards of bookshelf space dedicated to TTRPG books. That's why there are sections on designing traps, and on new encounter tables, and on how to make a round-robin DM-ing game, and yes a list of Egyptian, Greek, Norse, etc. male, female, and surnames. If you have all of these things, or know how to produce them on your own, then there's likely little in the book you haven't seen an alternate version of.

Quote from: Larsdangly;1009837This whole discussion gives me that late-3E, fin-de-siecle feeling. Is there anything in this book other than kewl pwrzz class builds?

About half the book is new archetypes and feats, and the other half is a guide to complex traps, wandering monster tables (which the DMG and MM inexplicably lacked), and a bunch of boring text trying to explain how 5e CR is totally not just some BS number that doesn't really mean much with a pile of tables that aren't even self-consistent.

Personally, I like moving away from having a laptop at the table. I used it for a while, but I stare at a screen all day at my job. I like having everything on paper.

Quote from: Willie the Duck;100988020, really? It doesn't seem like that many. Either way, it's near the end and others  (https://www.amazon.com/Gygaxs-Extraordinary-Gygaxian-Fantasy-Worlds/dp/1931275564)have thought it a good idea. It does speak to who their target audience is--new or lightly-involved gamers who do not have 2-20 yards of bookshelf space dedicated to TTRPG books. That's why there are sections on designing traps, and on new encounter tables, and on how to make a round-robin DM-ing game, and yes a list of Egyptian, Greek, Norse, etc. male, female, and surnames. If you have all of these things, or know how to produce them on your own, then there's likely little in the book you haven't seen an alternate version of.

Based on the TOC, it is 17-18 pages of solid names. Which is totally and completely ridiculous. Anyone with an internet connection can call up a list of names for various real and imaginary cultures for free and in less time than it takes to open a book, and anyone with three neurons to rub together will make up their own character name anyway. Those pages should have been spent on something worth while.

Actually, what I could have seen is some more fully developed Backgrounds.

Quote from: Larsdangly;1009837This whole discussion gives me that late-3E, fin-de-siecle feeling. Is there anything in this book other than kewl pwrzz class builds?

To be honest, it's the main feature of it - but considering it has taken three years after the launch of the 5E to come up with an Unearthed Arcana-style expansion, I don't think the game is being overburdened with class build expansions, and I like that they are sticking with 12 Core classes (for the time being at least).

You can take or leave the expansions, of course, but I'd argue that both the Rogue, Fighter and possibly Sorcerer have options that should have been core anyway, had there been enough space.

Some have been screaming for this online for the last three years. Others can just ignore it if they want.

Quote from: Larsdangly;1009878I just saw the full TOC for this. It looks like it has a bunch of cool stuff, but wtf were they thinking devoting nearly 20 pages to character names (!?!). That is simply nuts. They couldn't think of anything better to stick in a book like this?

Quote from: Willie the Duck;100988020, really? It doesn't seem like that many. Either way, it's near the end and

18 pages actually. But that is still 18 pages in the book devoted to random name tables...
6 pages sorting magic items by rarity. Which I and others had allready done and posted. Nice to have it in hardcopy form though.
21 pages of random wilderness encounter tables. Which was lacking from the DMG and MM so its useful for those who cant or don't want to make their own.

Quote from: TrippyHippy;1009891Actually, what I could have seen is some more fully developed Backgrounds.

Backgrounds and perhaps some new races too.

Quote from: Omega;1009983Backgrounds and perhaps some new races too.

I'm ambivalent on new races. They often feel very awkward in most campaign worlds which are built around the PHB races. This is in terms of fluff rather than mechanics--the latter is way easier to get right. Anyways, as far as races go, we got that monster book not too long ago that gave us several more options, so maybe they felt that they had covered that well enough. Of course that stupid +1 rule means those races can't use the class stuff from this book in AL play, so...

Quote from: Omega;1009983Backgrounds and perhaps some new races too.

I think we had a bunch of races with the Volo's book, to be fair.

At the very least, I could have done without the Arabic, Slavic and Niger-Congo name tables and would have liked a couple more pages of elaborate traps.

The Gaming Den is furious about the new subclasses, so that must mean they're pretty good.

It's too short. The subclasses are mostly cool. I made a samurai, but his abilities don't scream samurai to me. More like adreno-fighter/used car dealer.

I appreciate all the charts, including names. I can use those more readily than a stupid name generator. Magic items and Encounter tables should have been in core.

I'm Interested to test the alternate CR encounter building rules. The ones in the DMG are not trustworthy.

Quote from: Larsdangly;1009878I just saw the full TOC for this. It looks like it has a bunch of cool stuff, but wtf were they thinking devoting nearly 20 pages to character names (!?!). That is simply nuts. They couldn't think of anything better to stick in a book like this?

Apparently this was a popularly requested feature. I must admit I did not see the need but I do know one person who said this is essentially why he bought the book.

Quote from: jadrax;1010042Apparently this was a popularly requested feature. I must admit I did not see the need but I do know one person who said this is essentially why he bought the book.

?????

I must have lost connection with the rest of humanity because I can't imagine a world where anyone gives a rats ass about this.  The 'meat' of D&D books has always been monsters, followed by spells, followed by gear (including magic items), perhaps followed by classes (and backgrounds), perhaps followed by traps. 5E could publish hundreds of pages on each of these topics without reaching the end of the demand for such material. So naturally they spent 18 pages on #&$@ing names. It is just so stupid.

18 pages was overkill. Tables for D&D fantasy race names would have been fine...but did I really need Slavic, French, and Japanese names?

I put the guide on my Christmas list because something had to be there, and it seemed like an easy purchase for family to manage.  If I'd known it had 20 pages of names in it, I might not have put it on the list.  But knowing that now, it doesn't annoy me enough to take it off the list.  

That does a fair job of describing my attitude about 98%+ of game products lately.  Whatever.

Quote from: Larsdangly;1010047I must have lost connection with the rest of humanity because I can't imagine a world where anyone gives a rats ass about this.  The 'meat' of D&D books has always been monsters, followed by spells, followed by gear (including magic items), perhaps followed by classes (and backgrounds), perhaps followed by traps. 5E could publish hundreds of pages on each of these topics without reaching the end of the demand for such material. So naturally they spent 18 pages on #&$@ing names. It is just so stupid.

I'm going to reiterate that I think the primary audience is people who do not have shelves of RPG material and years of RPG experience. People who don't have a 1e AD&D DMG with a harlot's table, and a bunch of books with rumor tables, and example encounter tables, and 2e PHBs with large equipment lists which include exchange goods like bolts of cloth and wheels of cheese (and other examples of things I consider roughly equivalent to these name tables).

There are various levels of familiarity and knowledge sets that those of us who have been gaming for decades have integrated so well that we barely recognize them. Amongst them is being able to make up large numbers of convincing 'old-timey' names which don't end up being either 'Lancelot Othello Nottingham #5' or 'Sir Gildebingbong Snazzlebottom the 157th.' Or at least have gotten to the point where one could do so so readily that an example chart is not even needed or appreciated, but that it's presence in a potential purchase is jarring and unappreciated.

So if you want to consider yourself a superior gamer to the people for whom this section of this book is intended, feel free (not that you need my permission of course)-- you undoubtedly are. You are an experienced gamer who does not need any training wheels. But, on some level, that is in fact a way of having "lost connection with the rest of humanity."

I for one am glad that WotC is seeing fit to market to that audience once again. That means that my niece and nephew are all the more likely to pick up this game at some point and want to play. And they might be able to do so even if they don't decide that they want my help, but instead figure it out with their friends. That hasn't been true for D&D since it came in color-coded boxes. So that makes me glad, even if there is page-count and material there for which I have no use.

I don't mind the names. I didn't buy the book for those, but I'll find a use for them.

Barrelhouse Gutboy is the greatest D&D name ever published (from the 1E AD&D DMG example of combat). If they included it in their list I'll forgive them.

Quote from: TrippyHippy;1009991I think we had a bunch of races with the Volo's book, to be fair.

The AL limits how many books you can use to create a character. So you cant use Volo and Xanithar to create a character. Its perfectly fine outside the AL though as long as the DM is ok with it.

Quote from: Steven Mitchell;1010050I put the guide on my Christmas list because something had to be there, and it seemed like an easy purchase for family to manage.  If I'd known it had 20 pages of names in it, I might not have put it on the list.  But knowing that now, it doesn't annoy me enough to take it off the list.  

That does a fair job of describing my attitude about 98%+ of game products lately.  Whatever.

eh, its just 18 pages of names out of a 180+ page book.

Heres a quick rundown.
53 pages of new class stuff. New paths, new detailing options, new chargen rules for druids and more.
12 pages of lifepath sort of character background.
3 pages of Racial feats. (which arent 3e feats.)
11 pages of DM optonal rules for things like sleep, tool use and ways to visualize effects.
6 pages for a new encounter building system.
21 pages of wilderness encounter tables. FINALLY!
10 pages on traps and trap building.
10 pages on downtime activities.
6 pages of common magic items.
6 pages of magic items sorted by rarity FINALLY!
22 pages of new spells.
3 pages of shared campaign rules.
18 pages of names.

Quote from: Larsdangly;1010086Barrelhouse Gutboy is the greatest D&D name ever published (from the 1E AD&D DMG example of combat). If they included it in their list I'll forgive them.

Gleep Wurp and Faffle Dwe'o-mercraft should have been in there too. :cool:

Even I, who scratched my head at the inclusion of all those names, ended up finding them useful at the table when my friends showed up without character sheets and we had to make some on the spot. Everyone always struggles to come up with PC names that don't sound weird, and the book gave an easy out.

Exactly. Like alot of tables in games, they are oft there for those times you are drawing a blank or want something unexpected.

Quote from: Omega;1010134Exactly. Like alot of tables in games, they are oft there for those times you are drawing a blank or want something unexpected.

S'why I like them.

It sure sounds like it has a lot of filler...

Quote from: RPGPundit;1010603It sure sounds like it has a lot of filler...

Yeah. OTOH WoTC seem better at this sort of stuff than their adventures, which are pretty much uniformly bad IME, at least in presentation - even the 3e era adventures from 2000 were presented much better than the 5e versions in Tales from the Yawning Portal, convincing me I should just use old stuff and convert myself. What I really want now is a proper high level monster book with all the demon lords, Arch-devils, princes of elemental evil & such.

However WoTC just sent me a nice email promising to replace my fell-apart PHB & MM:

Hello Simon,

Thank you for contacting Wizards of the Coast! We will be glad to replace your book! In addition to the replacement you will not need to send us the older book. Alas your package order has been procured! It's an easy route out of our City of WaterDeep, but the trails ahead are treacherous! A few weeks maximum to get the package to our fellow Adventurer and the weather determines our swift trek. A warning for all to hear: Do not be a fool in taking risks! Dead men can't spend their fortune.

If you have any further questions, please feel free to reply back to this email, or reach us at the contact information linked below. We'll be happy to help you out however we can.

Thank you.

In light of this I think I'll kick them some cash and buy Xanathar's once my replacements arrive. :cool:

If some want a section full of names in a rpg product so what. I don't get gamers in our hobby being both offended and bothered by that. My response is who are you, why do you care and fuck off. Are gamers lives so devoid any meaning that a section on names in a rpg can ruin their day. Now if the book new material is filled with mostly poor options and too much filler which I don't like either I can see why some in the hobby would complain about that . But a section on names especially when no one is forced to use it. Go on the internet find the name and number of a mental health care professional with good rating and book a appointment ASAP as one needs to see one.

Quote from: sureshot;1010627If some want a section full of names in a rpg product so what. I don't get gamers in our hobby being both offended and bothered by that. My response is who are you, why do you care and fuck off. Are gamers lives so devoid any meaning that a section on names in a rpg can ruin their day. Now if the book new material is filled with mostly poor options and too much filler which I don't like either I can see why some in the hobby would complain about that . But a section on names especially when no one is forced to use it. Go on the internet find the name and number of a mental health care professional with good rating and book a appointment ASAP as one needs to see one.

Not speaking for anyone else, but my "whatever" reaction to it is because as far as I can see, WotC has been bad at putting filler into their products for some time now--since at least D&D 3.5 was launched--and seem to be gradually getting worse.  

I hate to say it, because I usually like where his designs go, but one common denominator on the "getting worse" part at least seems to be "Mearls is involved".  This predates his work with WotC.  I have some of the Fantasy Flight books that he did for 3E, and they are mostly boilerplate dribble.  (The only reason I have as many as I do, I got a set of them at a huge discount from a game store going out of business.  Some I got at 10% of MSRP, and consider it wasted money.  That bad.)  In any case, it doesn't take much to set off my "boilerplate" radar signals with them.  If another company had a book with 20 pages of names in it, I wouldn't think twice about it.

I mostly like WotC's content these days, but hooooooooly crap do they have bad material quality control. Bad binding isn't just a first-run PHB problem. All the books have crap-quality binding. I would include their awful map placement and sizing as part of that bad quality control. The art is good, probably better than ever, and I like the look of things. Anyway, my quick take:

1. The tables are nice. There are too many name tables, but better too many than none.
2. The complex traps section is interesting, I guess, but it's too short and has only two examples.
3. The expanded encounter-building section is garbage and not even internally consistent. The fact is their CR formula doesn't work, and their attempt to create a mathematical relationship between any monster of a given CR and any player of a given level is basically a complete failure.
4. The subclasses are a mixed bag. I intensely dislike the Fighter options, as they mostly depend on long rests, breaking a key them of the base class. I especially dislike the Cavalier, whose 3rd-level feature most often manifests as "the monster I attacked attacks me back." Situationally useful for drawing attacks off an ally, I guess.

I agree about tbe book binding. Ironically it seems to be a problem that both Wotc and Paizo keep having. Whst gets me are the fans saying we should not complain about the issue.  It's great that both companies offer repkacement copies yet if the same printer keeps having problens with binding use another one.

I also agree about tbe new material. The quality varies. Though unlike the new Pathfinder material I have generally been satisfied with new Wotc material.

Im started playing in a 5th Ed game a couple months back and as usual felt I had to own every damn book. I have to admit, Xanathar was a waste of money in my opinion. Im considering an Ebay sell off seriously.

IME player options are largely a giant rip-off. You pay $50 for a book with maybe two or three things in it you'll use over the course of a full year.

Quote from: fearsomepirate;1010634I mostly like WotC's content these days, but hooooooooly crap do they have bad material quality control. Bad binding isn't just a first-run PHB problem. All the books have crap-quality binding. I would include their awful map placement and sizing as part of that bad quality control.

Maps - yes, after seeing how ludicrously bad the Yawning Portal maps were - to the extent I had to google the old 3e era maps to get something usable - I'm not buying another WoTC adventure.

Binding - really? My non first print stuff has held up so far. What other books have you seen fall apart?

Quote from: fearsomepirate;1010650IME player options are largely a giant rip-off. You pay $50 for a book with maybe two or three things in it you'll use over the course of a full year.

Yes, players buying books beyond the PHB seems like a sucker's game to me. A single group copy is ok I think though.

I've seen a lot of people with printing and binding errors since the first run. The latter books don't outright fall apart as quickly, but the binding is still glued, so it's not going to last forever.

The nice thing about being a DM is if I feel I'm not getting anything out of a book, I will just invent an excuse to use it. I haven't used Volo's Guide in a while, so it's time for the party to face a Flail Snail or something. You can't really do that as a player. Okay, so you chose one of the new subclasses...and that's it for you!

Quote from: RPGPundit;1010603It sure sounds like it has a lot of filler...

Just the name stuff and the variant encounter system really feels like filler.

The rest is useful to DMs and players to varying degrees and even the name section will be useful to some.

While not much use to me personally. I really enjoyed the life path sort of system for fleshing out a PCs past. Sure its kinda short. But its enough to springboard ideas off if you want.

The new common magic item section is fun too. Lots of little gadgets that dont do much really. But add that extra element to the low end stuff.

The variant encounter plotting system is no use to me. But it seems easier to use than the one in the DMG.

I also really like the section on tool proficiencies and fleshing them each out a little.

Whats interesting is just how much isnt in the book from the playtests. Makes you wonder what all was held back due to complaints. Unfortunately we saw early on that some of the factions bitching about this or that werent actually playtesting. They just took a glance and flipped out. Or flipped because someone else did.

Hopefully some of the unused stuff will show up later.

Quote from: rgrove0172;1010641Im started playing in a 5th Ed game a couple months back and as usual felt I had to own every damn book. I have to admit, Xanathar was a waste of money in my opinion. Im considering an Ebay sell off seriously.

Why? All you need is the PHB, DMG, and MM. The only other book Id suggest is Volos Guide as it is actually fairly usefull for the new monsters, PC races and such. Sword Coast was near useless. Its not even worth it for the new backgrounds. Xanithar is 50/50. Some new class paths, some tables missing from the DMG, some new low level items, rules for curbing Druids, and a bit more.

But you could pass on the now expansion 3 books and not really miss anything.

Quote from: fearsomepirate;1010650IME player options are largely a giant rip-off. You pay $50 for a book with maybe two or three things in it you'll use over the course of a full year.

Quote from: S'mon;1010662Yes, players buying books beyond the PHB seems like a sucker's game to me. A single group copy is ok I think though.

Except that that applies to the PHB and MM too. Most players only use one or two classes, or a GM uses a few select monsters and possibly not much else depending on the campaign.

What a rip-off they didnt cater precisely to your personal selfish whims! Those WOTC scum! :rolleyes:

Are you two just terminally stupid today?

Apparently WoTC is forcing people to pay for optional rules books these days.

Quote from: Omega;1010978Except that that applies to the PHB and MM too. Most players only use one or two classes, or a GM uses a few select monsters and possibly not much else depending on the campaign.

What a rip-off they didnt cater precisely to your personal selfish whims! Those WOTC scum! :rolleyes:

Are you two just terminally stupid today?

No, you are. :p

As GM & player I definitely find it very useful for players to own and be familiar with the rules in the PHB. It's also good if they bring those rules to the game and can look them up so the GM doesn't have to. And in general it's good to have the one core book everyone owns & is familiar with.

Obviously the table only needs one DMG & MM just as it only needs (at most) one Volo's Guide to Monsters etc.

I didn't say anything about being ripped off, if you weren't so stupid you would have noticed I said I'd probably buy Xanathar's myself, mostly for the encounter tables when GMing. As a player though I'll almost certainly stick to just bringing the PHB.

Quote from: Voros;1011017Apparently WoTC is forcing people to pay for optional rules books these days.

Where the hell did this come from?

Quote from: Christopher Brady;1011042Where the hell did this come from?

Here, obviously.

QuoteOriginally Posted by fearsomepirate
IME player options are largely a giant rip-off. You pay $50 for a book with maybe two or three things in it you'll use over the course of a full year.

Quote from: Voros;1011017Apparently WoTC is forcing people to pay for optional rules books these days.

I know what you mean, they nearly murdered me when I told them I considered all role-playing game products to be optional and that I own none of their products. Luckily they were so boggled by the concept I was able to escape with only  minor injuries.

Quote from: S'mon;1011041No, you are. :p

Nice try there. Keep struggling.

Quote from: Omega;1011077Nice try there. Keep struggling.

Poopy-head.

Quote from: Omega;1010978Except that that applies to the PHB and MM too. Most players only use one or two classes, or a GM uses a few select monsters and possibly not much else depending on the campaign.

Most players will look up rules more than a couple times. Casters, of course, will use the book a lot. I get a lot of use out of the monster manual...I don't know what DMs are using only 4 or 5 monsters over the course of a 15+ level campaign.

No one is forced to buy anything though. No gun is aimed at my head or anyone else. The trick is to wait and see if it's worth buying. Rushing out to buy it because one is impatient is on you not on Wotc or any other rpg company. Having been burned by the quality of some Paizo releases in the past. I wait and read the reviews then buy the book. Gamers need to stop blaming companies for their poor spending habits.

Quote from: sureshot;1011157No one is forced to buy anything though. No gun is aimed at my head or anyone else. The trick is to wait and see if it's worth buying. Rushing out to buy it because one is impatient is on you not on Wotc or any other rpg company. Having been burned by the quality of some Paizo releases in the past. I wait and read the reviews then buy the book. Gamers need to stop blaming companies for their poor spending habits.

I don't blame anyone for my spending habits. I can easily afford to drop $50 on a book that's a gamble just as I can on a dinner at an untried restaurant because neither has any real lasting effect on my finances. If money gets short, then I can certainly tighten up, but $50 really isn't a lot of money for me these days.

Quote from: Christopher Brady;1011042Where the hell did this come from?

The thread in a nutshell:

"Let's all talk about this splatbook!"

FearsomePirate: "splatbooks are a crock!"

Voros: "no one's forcing you to buy it."


Now, admittedly, 'no one's forcing it on you' isn't really a good rejoinder to 'this isn't good' since, well, this is basically a review thread. OTOH, 'this optional supplement can feel superfluous' is kind of a weird critique, since, it kinda has to be or it wouldn't be optional. Great way to spin our wheels I guess without actually reviewing the book in question. :p

I'm still waiting for my copy to arrive!

New material is always going to be something of mixed quality imo. The thing is one should wait and read the reviews of a product. I'm not saying go by what is written only in reviews of course. Rushing out to buy a product well it's a risk. I stopped buying as much as I used to from Paizo because lately 1/4 of the material in the new books is reprints with a side order of nerfing cool options. Usually because of PFS. Sometimes it's implied by some that they just have to buy a new product. Then instead of blaming themselves it's either the companies fault, the players "forcing" them to buy itor a little from column A and a little from column B. Gamers complain about bloat in Pathfinder and other rpgs yet the same gamers keeping buying the books.

You guys are really reaching to make "players' options are really [bleepity] long term bang for your buck" an issue.

I can see fearsomepirate's argument. What seems like it will explode with replay value often ends up shelved because you're not running or playing enough games to dig deep into the material. I still get them, but on retrospect I also noticed the same small rate of return.

Thus this observation is a high crime and must be pilloried! Bring it, bitches! YOLO! :p

For the curious here is what they retreaded from past books.
Sword Coast
Monk path Way of the Sun Soul
Rogue paths Mastermind and Swashbuckler
Sorcerer path Storm Sorcerer
Princes of the Apocalypse
Most of the spells.

Everything else seems to be from the playtest stuff or new.
So alot less retread than I first thought. And having the spells no longer just in a module is probably a boon to some.

Quote from: Omega;1010097eh, its just 18 pages of names out of a 180+ page book.

Heres a quick rundown.
53 pages of new class stuff. New paths, new detailing options, new chargen rules for druids and more.
12 pages of lifepath sort of character background.
3 pages of Racial feats. (which arent 3e feats.)
11 pages of DM optonal rules for things like sleep, tool use and ways to visualize effects.
6 pages for a new encounter building system.
21 pages of wilderness encounter tables. FINALLY!
10 pages on traps and trap building.
10 pages on downtime activities.
6 pages of common magic items.
6 pages of magic items sorted by rarity FINALLY!
22 pages of new spells.
3 pages of shared campaign rules.
18 pages of names.

Ugh. 4th largest section of the entire book. What an incredible waste of valuable space!

What sort of names are on those 18 pages? Seems like it would be very difficult to make them interesting as well as useful. They would have to be run of the mill, like Carlos the Dwarf, and thus nothing anyone needs on a list; or else fanciful, like Everglade Springsong Elfinpantz, and thus useless to anyone who doesn't swing that way; or finally just made-up sound combinations, like Kurmbor the Orc, which I have a hard time seeing anyone clamoring for help with.  Got some examples? 18 pages is a lot of names.

Quote from: Saplatt;1011666Ugh. 4th largest section of the entire book. What an incredible waste of valuable space!

Its really YMMV. Some players are HORRRRRRRIBLE at coming up with character names. So something like this is actually a great boon.
Same with the sort of lifepath/background section. Totally useless to some players.

And thats whats great agout the book. Theres alot of stuff in there thats useful to those who struggle for an idea or just need a little spart to light the fires of imagination.

Quote from: Dumarest;1011672What sort of names are on those 18 pages? Seems like it would be very difficult to make them interesting as well as useful. They would have to be run of the mill, like Carlos the Dwarf, and thus nothing anyone needs on a list; or else fanciful, like Everglade Springsong Elfinpantz, and thus useless to anyone who doesn't swing that way; or finally just made-up sound combinations, like Kurmbor the Orc, which I have a hard time seeing anyone clamoring for help with.  Got some examples? 18 pages is a lot of names.

50 names each female and male for each race. Then usually 50 more for the races clan, family, etc. Exceptions being Half-Orcs and Tieflings.
Elves also get 50 child names. Tieflings get a Virtue mane. So aside from the half-orc each race gets 150 names.
Dragonborn, Dwarf, Elf, Gnome, Halfling, Half-Orc, and Tiefling. 1000 total?

Humans are broken down by language more or less. Also 50 each male and female. No clan/family names though.
Arabic, Celtic, Chinese, Egyptian, English, French, German, Greek, Indian, Japanese, Mesoamerican, Niger-Congo, Norse, Polynesian, Roman, Slavic, and Spanish. 1700 total?

So a fairly broad spread. Enough to get up and running for a PC or a quick NPC. 2700 total???

But as noted above. Very YMMV for usefulness. Some will never need it. Some might need it once in a while. Others may use it quite a bit. Like any other quickgen aide.

update: I missed the Tiefling Virtue name so added that in and recalculated.

I'm not a 5e player, but a big list of names is evergreen and will probably turn out to be one of the most useful parts of the book. Always great to have such a list at hand!

I actually kind of wish they used more pages and gave us some family names for the real world ones.  I was very happy with the name lists -- helps with quickly generating an NPC.

Quote from: Opaopajr;1011330You guys are really reaching to make "players' options are really [bleepity] long term bang for your buck" an issue.

I can see fearsomepirate's argument. What seems like it will explode with replay value often ends up shelved because you're not running or playing enough games to dig deep into the material. I still get them, but on retrospect I also noticed the same small rate of return.

Thus this observation is a high crime and must be pilloried! Bring it, bitches! YOLO! :p

I DMed 4e for most of its run, so I think maybe 5 years? I bought:

PHB 1-3
DMG
MM 1 & 2
Heroes of the Elemental Chaos
Martial, Divine, and Primal powers

Nobody ever used HotEC. None of the PHB3 classes ever got used, and I think maybe only a couple feats ever did. PHB2 got a bit more use. I think I had an Invoker, a Warden, and a Druid, and Goliath definitely showed up. I don't think more than three or four abilities from any power source book ever got used. If you're playing tons of short games that run 2 or 3 sessions, I can see them being a good buy, but when you stick with the same character for a year or two, unless you keep playing that same edition for 15 years, you're not going to get much out of it. I ran the game for five years and saw at least a dozen different characters, and 90% of everything players did came from PHB 1.

Quote from: fearsomepirate;1012157I ran the game for five years and saw at least a dozen different characters, and 90% of everything players did came from PHB 1.

I'm running 4e currently. I soon realised I could just bring a PHB and the adventure, and be able to deal with 99% of queries.

So far since buying Xanathar's book, I've only actually used one part of it at the actual table.

Want to know which part?

The names.

Quote from: mAcular Chaotic;1012164So far since buying Xanathar's book, I've only actually used one part of it at the actual table.

Want to know which part?

The names.

Thats funny. and... er... same here. I needed a quick name for a NPC and used the book.

Im 100% certain later I'll be using other parts of it. Kefra is allready using the druids animals by region tables and Jan has been curious about the Arcane Archer path for the fighter. Eventually I'll make good use of some of those common magic items. The rest. Who knows? Never know when you'll need a wilderness check and that sections use.

So far two of my players have taken Feats from it, and I have also used the names table.

Currently I am very tempted to try and work Heward's Handy Spice Pouch into the game somehow as well.

I've used a couple of the Downtime activities in the AL ToA adventure, the names for NPC's encountered (it was odd, I've been getting meet a lot of fellow adventuring parties.  I need to switch up the dice) and the tool proficiency combo system.

Also, one of my players has used the spells in the book.

Quote from: mAcular Chaotic;1012164So far since buying Xanathar's book, I've only actually used one part of it at the actual table.

Want to know which part?

The names.

Names tables can be super useful, especially if they're well designed.

Quote from: RPGPundit;1013187Names tables can be super useful, especially if they're well designed.

They are, especially listing a bunch for each culture.

oops. I missed that Tieflings get a Virtue name. To that brings the races up to 1000 names and a grand total of 2700 names.

Updated my earlier post to correct that.

Quote from: mAcular Chaotic;1013188They are, especially listing a bunch for each culture.

Yup.

Lion & Dragon, like Dark Albion, has name tables that are really based on the most popular names in 15th Century England, Scotland and Wales.

Welp. Used the name table in Sunday night's game. This is destined to be the most-derided, most-used part of the book.

Quote from: fearsomepirate;1014704This is destined to be the most-derided, most-used part of the book.

It doesn't surprise me. Within my 2 groups who play 5e at times, we have seen use of:

• encounter tables (because why not? If you as the DM just choose, you will not get a random distribution, and are the tables you write up yourself going to be significantly better)
• name tables (again, why not? Until you've used them enough for them to get old they are as good as anything else, and you do have trouble coming up with good names after a while)
• minor magic items have started appearing in treasure (because they are just plain fun. My warlock now has a staff which becomes a fishing pole on command)
• My warlock is a celestial warlock (story reasons, he was going into the priesthood and instead became a follower of a saint)
• Hexblade (the fluff is crap, it is a fix to the bladelock concept, pure and simple)
• Downtime and tool rules.

Quote from: Willie the Duck;1014712It doesn't surprise me. Within my 2 groups who play 5e at times, we have seen use of:

• Hexblade (the fluff is crap, it is a fix to the bladelock concept, pure and simple)

According to an AL source, the Bladelock was specifically designed to be cross classed with Fighter.  Which boggles my mind, but meh.

However, most of the stuff used in the games I've run, are the same as yours.  Although I've personally used the Lifepath stuff, which was pretty fun, if pointless.

Quote from: Christopher Brady;1014717According to an AL source, the Bladelock was specifically designed to be cross classed with Fighter.  Which boggles my mind, but meh.

Hmmm...taking two levels of fighter to get medium armor and Action Surge does seem like a pretty good idea, now that you bring it up.

Quote from: Christopher Brady;1014717According to an AL source, the Bladelock was specifically designed to be cross classed with Fighter.  Which boggles my mind, but meh.

Your source is wrong.

Quote from: Christopher Brady;1014717According to an AL source, the Bladelock was specifically designed to be cross classed with Fighter.  Which boggles my mind, but meh.

Quote from: Omega;1014754Your source is wrong.

I'll be more polite about that. The designers have been amazingly consistent in not discussing design intent. I have no idea if I like that policy, but I admire their consistency. Unless your AL source has some secret backdoor avenue to Mearls and Crawford, etc., then what they said is probably just their opinion on the matter.  

It certainly feels like bladelock was either 1) not meant to be complete without some multiclassing (the semi-equivalent valor bard, for instance, gets medium armor. What is a single class bladelock to do? Power invest in Dex until light armor nets you a decent AC?), or 2) not meant to be a melee combatant, so much as just an alternative way of addressing the question of "what to do if the enemy does get across the front line and up in your face?" (instead of taking crossbow expert to be able to shoot at point blank or a get out of dodge cantrip like shocking grasp).

Quote from: fearsomepirate;1014746Hmmm...taking two levels of fighter to get medium armor and Action Surge does seem like a pretty good idea, now that you bring it up.

Before hexblade, and if you didn't have something like a starting Dex of 20 or some other fancy trick up your sleeve, it was close to required to take a level in something with medium armor. But a two level delay for warlock makes you even less of a spellcaster and more of a melee+ranged+a few tricks kinda gish character.

Quote from: Christopher Brady;1014717However, most of the stuff used in the games I've run, are the same as yours.  Although I've personally used the Lifepath stuff, which was pretty fun, if pointless.

I think we might use the lifepath stuff next time we start over with everyone.

Quote from: Willie the Duck;1014767I'll be more polite about that. The designers have been amazingly consistent in not discussing design intent. I have no idea if I like that policy, but I admire their consistency. Unless your AL source has some secret backdoor avenue to Mearls and Crawford, etc., then what they said is probably just their opinion on the matter.  

According to them, they do.  They're on twitter and several discussion pages, because they were part of the beta and reported directly.  And they claim that the Blade Lock is meant for those who really want to multiclass with a Fighter and still be a caster.  And given what they do for a living, they're not going to lie.

Also, neither they, nor I, actually considered that the Blade Lock had to be multiclassed to get the most benefit out of it.  Both of us are not fans of those who do.  Simply because of the propensity of multiclassers to be power gamers and rules' lawyers in the extreme.

I find that claim unlikely as multi-classing is purely optional. It is also telling that I have yet to see a single multi-class NPC in any of the hardcover adventures.

I would doubt any claim not directly from Mearls and Crawford. You can always ask them directly on Twitter to actually confirm it.

Quote from: Voros;1014884I find that claim unlikely as multi-classing is purely optional. It is also telling that I have yet to see a single multi-class NPC in any of the hardcover adventures.

Do they ever list classes for NPCs at all? They all seem built as NPCs AFAICR.

You could be right I'm away from my books right now on holidays so I can't check to confirm.

Quote from: S'mon;1014948Do they ever list classes for NPCs at all?

They do not.

Quote from: S'mon;1014948They all seem built as NPCs AFAICR.

They are.  All of them.

Quote from: Christopher Brady;1015001They do not.

They are.  All of them.

Yes, and no. Kinda...

I looked at the NPCs and most are built off a class without actually saying so. All seem to be single class. But its hard to tell for sure with one.

Am I mistaken or did I see on G+ that there's some kind of special edition of this?

Quote from: RPGPundit;1016533Am I mistaken or did I see on G+ that there's some kind of special edition of this?

Preorders and the first shipment to FLGSs got alternate cover art:
"normal":
[ATTACH=CONFIG]2067[/ATTACH]

"special":
[ATTACH=CONFIG]2068[/ATTACH]

I rush into the store on Day 1 every time to get the limited edition covers, lol.

Quote from: RPGPundit;1013187Names tables can be super useful, especially if they're well designed.

Never used one in decades of gaming. Never even thought about using one.

Quote from: RPGPundit;1016533Am I mistaken or did I see on G+ that there's some kind of special edition of this?

Alternate cover. Volo's Guide had one or more as well. And I believe the Taroka Deck had an alternate box as well.

Looks like its another Hydro74 piece. Same artist as did this for Dragon.
(http://www.hydro74.com/images/portfolio/4c868909a06937bf8d1e64c69c1ff3d33a83cd7d.jpg)

Quote from: Willie the Duck;1014767Before hexblade, and if you didn't have something like a starting Dex of 20 or some other fancy trick up your sleeve, it was close to required to take a level in something with medium armor. But a two level delay for warlock makes you even less of a spellcaster and more of a melee+ranged+a few tricks kinda gish character.

No, what you needed to was accept that the Pact didn't turn you into the main character from Devil May Cry. The mistake people made was taking Pact of the Blade, not taking Eldritch Blast, then getting smeared by monsters. You're trading a bit of power for versatility with this pact, not radically reshaping the class. The new Hexblade patron seems to be designed to allow people to play the kind of character they thought the Pact was for.

I'd call that different ways of saying the same thing. Devoting an archetype to melee prowress doesn't (and shouldn't) make a full spellcaster into a wholey competent martial character. If you throw some fighter onto it, it naturally would come closer, at the expense of delaying your spell progression.

I agree, the hexblade makes it more what people thought the bladelock would be. I dislike the sub-class, but only for what it does to Multiclassing. As a straight hexblade bladelock, it's a fine Devil May Cry/Jedi/whatever. I suspect most people will tire of it relatively quickly.

I hate Warlocks for multiclassing, period. Eldritch Blast should never have been a cantrip; it should have been a class feature that scaled with class level. Oh, a sorcerer/bard with two levels of warlock? That's a fresh idea. Say, why did your bard make a pact with Satan, anyway? Oh, what's that, you never even thought about why, some time around level 5, he decided that demons are cool? Neat, this should be a great game.

The rudimentary concept of the warlock is sound, and was well overdue when it was brought into being. Ever since I started playing, there has been a sub-segment of players that wanted to play a "wizard," but not have the complexity of a vancian, plan your spells out at the beginning of the day, spellbook hunting, D&D-style magic user. "I just want to play a character who blasts people with arcane power instead of stabs them with swords" and all that. I get it. As a fighter-centric player, that's the kind of "wizard" I'd want to play too. And frankly, probably more like the magic user was originally intended, as lightning bolts and fireballs were ways to reuse the artillery rules and so on.

But the implementation, along with the whole "pact maker" fluff (which, I also get, but don't understand why that can't just be an alternative cleric model), has just been problematic in each edition.

Quote from: fearsomepirate;1016775Say, why did your bard make a pact with Satan, anyway? Oh, what's that, you never even thought about why, some time around level 5, he decided that demons are cool? Neat, this should be a great game.

It worked for Ozzy, right?

Quote from: Willie the Duck;1016780The rudimentary concept of the warlock is sound, and was well overdue when it was brought into being. Ever since I started playing, there has been a sub-segment of players that wanted to play a "wizard," but not have the complexity of a vancian, plan your spells out at the beginning of the day, spellbook hunting, D&D-style magic user. "I just want to play a character who blasts people with arcane power instead of stabs them with swords" and all that. I get it. As a fighter-centric player, that's the kind of "wizard" I'd want to play too. And frankly, probably more like the magic user was originally intended, as lightning bolts and fireballs were ways to reuse the artillery rules and so on.

But the implementation, along with the whole "pact maker" fluff (which, I also get, but don't understand why that can't just be an alternative cleric model), has just been problematic in each edition.

I rather like the 5e Warlock. The only real beef I have with it is that damned Eldritch Blast and every Sorcerer and Bard on the planet having 2 levels of Warlock to get Figher-caliber damage output.

Quote from: fearsomepirate;1016831I rather like the 5e Warlock. The only real beef I have with it is that damned Eldritch Blast and every Sorcerer and Bard on the planet having 2 levels of Warlock to get Figher-caliber damage output.

I just made a warlock (archfey) and picked eldritch blast. Didn't even think about this (only picked it because it didn't have material component), then again I'm new to 5th Edition and there won't be any multiclassing (house rule is only humans, no multiclass and no feats, all 'long rest' abilities/spells can be restored only once per week)

We also start out as slaves and I might die quite soon anyway, as I believe my questions about the setting/backgrounds (no normal backgrounds, only some cultural ones) and rules made people angry at me. (The GM basically answered my last PM with 'TLDR') At least I made sure to pick no material component spells, except for one (Comprehend Languages) and the char concept was a fallen noble/merchant anyway, thus I focused on non-combat abilities.

Warlock sure seems to have good options with that list of Eldritch Invocations as I read more about it. Those abilities and powers might make a spell caster a good, valid option even with the house rules, some grant skill proficiency or at-will free spells. Although I have to survive and become level 2 for them first.

Eldritch Blast is perfectly fine for warlocks. Lemme put it this way, though. Every cantrip scales with character level.  So if you do a gish with two levels of wizard and grab Fire Bolt, you'll eventually do 4d10 damage with it. By contrast, weapon attacks scale with class level. If you only take two levels of Fighter, you're stuck at one attack and your fighting style. What makes this not really a balance issue is a standard cantrip does less than half of what any warrior class is going to be doing at high level. A bog standard sword-and-board Duelist Fighter will peak out at 4x(d8+7+[magic]) damage.

The exception is Eldritch Blast. 2nd level of warlock gets invocations, so pick up Agonizing Blast and Repelling Blast, and now you've got a cantrip that is more that twice as powerful as the standard---i.e. about what a full-classed warrior does, for the low low cost of just two levels in Warlock. That's why I said they should have made EB a class feature rather than a cantrip.

I had a single warlock previously, either in 3.5 or Pathfinder, never touched 4th Edition more than necessary and for a broken game session for a new GM who wanted 4E (and a single battle was too damn long with it), but as far I recall in previous editions Eldritch Blast was indeed a class feature, no?

Yeah, EB was a class feature in 3.5 (4e classes don't map onto 5e at all). Basically I think that if you want to do 2x(1d10+CHA+HEX) damage, you should have to take five levels in Warlock, not 2 levels in Warlock and 3 in whatever you want.

Quote from: fearsomepirate;1016831I rather like the 5e Warlock. The only real beef I have with it is that damned Eldritch Blast and every Sorcerer and Bard on the planet having 2 levels of Warlock to get Figher-caliber damage output.

Simple fix, don't use the optional multi-class rules.

Quote from: fearsomepirate;1016831I rather like the 5e Warlock. The only real beef I have with it is that damned Eldritch Blast and every Sorcerer and Bard on the planet having 2 levels of Warlock to get Figher-caliber damage output.

What's wrong with Fire Bolt?  Has the same range at 1st level and doesn't require a Wizard to put points into Charisma for it to be decent at casting at it.  A Sorcerer is built on Charisma, so that's a hit against that class, one among many I say.

Quote from: Voros;1016867Simple fix, don't use the optional multi-class rules.

Agreed 100%! Unless you want a game as broken as 3e, don't use multiclassing. There's a good reason Feats & Multiclassing are specifically called out as optional rules, check with your DM if they're in use. Sadly many players seem to ignore this. Personally I recommend strongly against allowing multiclassing. I did once let a Wizard take a level of Rogue for flavour reasons but it's important IMO not to allow multiclass-dependent 'builds', or you get 3e.

Quote from: Christopher Brady;1016875What's wrong with Fire Bolt?  Has the same range at 1st level and doesn't require a Wizard to put points into Charisma for it to be decent at casting at it.  A Sorcerer is built on Charisma, so that's a hit against that class, one among many I say.

Firebolt: 1d10 per tier.
Eldritch Blast (typical Sorlock): 1d10+1d6+CHA+knockback per tier.

Like I said, the problem isn't with Warlocks per se, it's the way EB scales when you MC, making 2 levels in Warlock far too powerful compared to other MC options, and almost a must-have for sorcerers.

Quote from: Voros;1016867Simple fix, don't use the optional multi-class rules.

Not an option when I'm not the DM or in AL. AL is packed to the gills with Sorlocks. However, in my private games, I only allow two classes if you MC, and you can't MC Warlock. That said, it isn't game-ruining the way the worst of the 3.x hijinx could be. What it ends up being in practice was a squishier warlock with a great deal more freedom to spam spells, not an unstoppable godling. It's just annoying to me because nearly everyone does it once the sorc hits 5th level or so, and after that point, the Sorc just spams EB like a Warlock. If that's what you were going to do, why even bother with the Sorc class at all?

Oh, and back on topic, now that I've had it a while, this is a great DM resource, especially since I have come to hate having a computer at the table. "What's this random farmer's name, anyway?" NO LONGER AM I CURSED TO CALL EVERY SINGLE RANDOM PERSON "STEVE." THANK YOU WIZARDS OF THE COAST. But seriously, there are a lot fewer Steves in my game world now.

Like: Name Tables, Magic Item tables
Love: New Sorcerer subclasses, wandering monster tables,
Meh: New encounter guidelines. Guys, just admit there's no formula to map X monsters of CR N onto Y players of level M.
Dislike: New fighter subclasses. They're not broken, they just feel all wrong, with core abilities keyed to long rests. I've spent 3 years explaining to new players that the core Fighter's concept is he doesn't run out of gas, and now we have all these new archetypes whose core concept is that they run out of gas.
Don't care: Other player subclasses, because I don't really play 5e. I just run it.

Quote from: fearsomepirate;1016931Firebolt: 1d10 per tier.
Eldritch Blast (typical Sorlock): 1d10+1d6+CHA+knockback per tier.

Like I said, the problem isn't with Warlocks per se, it's the way EB scales when you MC, making 2 levels in Warlock far too powerful compared to other MC options, and almost a must-have for sorcerers.

Um... where is the +1d6 coming from? Nothing the Sorcerer Warlock or Wizard grants adds a d6 that I can find at a glance?

Quote from: Omega;1016945Um... where is the +1d6 coming from? Nothing the Sorcerer Warlock or Wizard grants adds a d6 that I can find at a glance?

  I think the assumption is that you're typically layering a Hex on a target in each encounter.

IME sorlocks fling Hex around with reckless abandon compared to warlocks. An 8th-level warlock has 2 4th-level slots that recharge on a short rest, so if he switches from Hex to a different Concentration spell, like Darkness, or just has his concentration broken, he probably can't switch back during that fight. A Sor 6/War 2 has 2 1st-level slots that recharge on a short rest, 4 1st-level slots, 3 2nd-level slots, and 3 3rd-level slots, not to mention 6 sorcery points to burn on Fireball/Eldritch Blast combos using Quickened Spell. So yeah, Hex is nearly always on, and then he just barfs out damage.

It actually gets pretty stupid, pretty qucikly.

Got it yesterday.

First impressions:
1.Those are really really nice Encounter Tables! I love how they do each terrain type by Tier, and how they are more than just monsters. They are so comprehensive one could use them for keying hexes in a hex crawl campaign.
2.The Common magic items are very nice as trinkets for PCs to find in the marketplace or in monster lairs, with no worries about unbalancing the game. I reckon I'll make an effort to throw some into my game.
3. The Zealot Barbarian is completely unkillable from level 14, as long as he has some healing potions (1 per 10 rounds) so that he can be at 1+hp before each Rage ends/starts a new Rage. Exception would be a few insta-kill spells that include "You die" in their description, eg Finger of Death and Disintegrate. I don't like that at all and would need to house rule it, I reckon requiring a CON save or die whenever at 0 hp and taking damage (ie a further Death Save would be required) following the first 3 failed death saves.

Quote from: fearsomepirate;1016935...
Meh: New encounter guidelines. Guys, just admit there's no formula to map X monsters of CR N onto Y players of level M.

Yea I thought it was the weakest of the UA playtests and was surprised to see it made it into the book.

I would have prefered they had about 2 pages fewer of names, cut out the encounter building stuff, and used the pages for more examples of complex traps. Or better yet, have some tables for building complex traps.

Quote from: fearsomepirate;1016954IME sorlocks fling Hex around with reckless abandon compared to warlocks. An 8th-level warlock has 2 4th-level slots that recharge on a short rest, so if he switches from Hex to a different Concentration spell, like Darkness, or just has his concentration broken, he probably can't switch back during that fight. A Sor 6/War 2 has 2 1st-level slots that recharge on a short rest, 4 1st-level slots, 3 2nd-level slots, and 3 3rd-level slots, not to mention 6 sorcery points to burn on Fireball/Eldritch Blast combos using Quickened Spell. So yeah, Hex is nearly always on, and then he just barfs out damage.

It actually gets pretty stupid, pretty qucikly.

That is way too reliant on short rests which are never ever a guarantee to get.

Quote from: fearsomepirate;1016954IME sorlocks fling Hex around with reckless abandon compared to warlocks. An 8th-level warlock has 2 4th-level slots that recharge on a short rest, so if he switches from Hex to a different Concentration spell, like Darkness, or just has his concentration broken, he probably can't switch back during that fight. A Sor 6/War 2 has 2 1st-level slots that recharge on a short rest, 4 1st-level slots, 3 2nd-level slots, and 3 3rd-level slots, not to mention 6 sorcery points to burn on Fireball/Eldritch Blast combos using Quickened Spell. So yeah, Hex is nearly always on, and then he just barfs out damage.

It actually gets pretty stupid, pretty qucikly.

If you're a Sorcerer, that's where you get your power, period.  No Sorcerer crossed with Warlock or whatever.  Same thing with Warlock.

The absolute worst thing WotC did was enable and encourage an idiotic level of build culture with their style of multiclassing.

Quote from: Omega;1016974That is way too reliant on short rests which are never ever a guarantee to get.

Sorlocks can use Sorcerer slots to cast Hex if they run out of Warlock slots. And unlike normal sorcerers, they're less likely to use up their low-level slots, since an unmodified EB is more powerful than L1 spells after 5th level (by contrast, normal cantrips don't catch up with L1 spells until 11th level, and don't surpass them until 17th level). So in practice, they're never short of slots to Hex with.

I'm not theorycrafting. This is how I've observed these people play.

Quote from: CRKrueger;1017008If you're a Sorcerer, that's where you get your power, period.  No Sorcerer crossed with Warlock or whatever.  Same thing with Warlock.

Quickened Fireball with a normal sorcerer is Fireball + regular boring cantrip. So you blast a crowd of mooks with a fireball for 8d6, then follow up on the big guy with another 2d10. That fucking Sorlock is sustaining Hex on the big guy, of course, so he blasts the crowd with a fireball for 8d6, then blasts the big guy for 2d10+2d6+8 and pushes him 20 ft off a cliff.

QuoteThe absolute worst thing WotC did was enable and encourage an idiotic level of build culture with their style of multiclassing.

It really is just this one combination in 5e, and it's because of how they designed EB. They mostly did a very good job of ensuring the tradeoffs in multiclassing meant it was not a straight power upgrade, but they dropped the ball with the Warlock. I think it is the only thing I have felt the need to house-rule due to being OP.

This discussion certainly isn't prompting me to reconsider my not using the Multiclass optional rules!

Re Xanathar's; the Shared Campaigns appendix is really weird and disappointing, considering that my own campaign is moving that way I was looking for good hints & tips. Instead I get copy/paste of Adventurer's League rules: PCs level up every 4 or 8 hours (though at least this requires scenario completion - doing a 4 hour scenario in 3 hrs counts for 4) and the amazing reward rules - no treasure in game, you get treasure and magic item treasure points by time played. Which would work ok in encounter-centric 4e, but strips out a major reason for playing 5e and traditional D&D - the joy of exploring and finding stuff. I feel this is an area where working out what the early RPG pioneers like Gygax & Arneson did, and following their lead, works much better.

Quote from: Christopher Brady;1016875What's wrong with Fire Bolt?  Has the same range at 1st level and doesn't require a Wizard to put points into Charisma for it to be decent at casting at it.  A Sorcerer is built on Charisma, so that's a hit against that class, one among many I say.

I don't think anyone is suggesting having wizards pick up eldritch blast. It is the ease that a bard, paladin, or sorcerer (who are already wanting to maximize their charisma) can pick up a solid at-will combat option by delaying their progression by 2 levels (mind you, 2 levels is not nothing, but relatively easy compared to something like multiclassing into fighter for multiple weapon attacks).

Quote from: Willie the Duck;1017110I don't think anyone is suggesting having wizards pick up eldritch blast. It is the ease that a bard, paladin, or sorcerer (who are already wanting to maximize their charisma) can pick up a solid at-will combat option by delaying their progression by 2 levels (mind you, 2 levels is not nothing, but relatively easy compared to something like multiclassing into fighter for multiple weapon attacks).

You arent delaying your progression 2 though. You are cutting off your primary class by 2 levels and docking the character a stat bonus or feat.

So a person whose magic was granted by his innate bloodline (Sorceror) can't make a pact with a demon (Warlock) and thus use both form of magic. How is permitted that is any less arbitrary than not permitting it?

The problem isn't the build culture the problem is the putting the rules before setting even one as generic as D&D style fantasy. Especially when it comes magic which is completely arbitrary as to how it works.

I see a lot of bitching about how X rule work with Y rule and how silly broken it is. Fuck doesn't anybody take responsibility for ensuring that the rules they use fit the setting they want?

Gronan is talking about how the Staff of Wizardry was THE one and only treasure on the bottom level of Greyhawk. I had them for sale as a rare highly priced luxury item at the Sorceror's Supply House in the City State of the Invincible Overlord. Neither approach is more correct than the other, it just I learned how to make magic item shop work in my setting long ago. I use specific RPGs or alter other RPGs so magic item shops continue to work the same regardless of the system I use.

The same with builds. When I ran GURPS, and D&D 3.5 players tried to build broken characters all the time. Even now with the OD&D based rules I use players try to bust my campaign with buying and commissioning magic items.  In the end it doesn't matter. Either they hit hard coded limits (like +3 being the max bonus for anything). Or they find out they move on to a higher level playing field.

If it is a wealth of items that causing the boost then they are at a disadvantage because they won't have the skill/level to compete with the NPCs who do have the item AND skill. If it a broken build causing the the build. Then it is always so narrowly focused that they will get their ass handed to them once somebody gets the drop on them or defines the "battlefield" instead of the player.

And if they are smart to realize how narrowly focused they are, then they start working to create opportunities. Which puts them back in the same boat as the not broken build as far as the campaign unfolds. Most of the time the broken builds are combat oriented. And I warn players, you can kill everything in the room but it not going to solve the problem.

Quote from: Omega;1017121You arent delaying your progression 2 though. You are cutting off your primary class by 2 levels and docking the character a stat bonus or feat.

If you're looking at level 20 I suppose.

QuoteI see a lot of bitching about how X rule work with Y rule and how silly broken it is. Fuck doesn't anybody take responsibility for ensuring that the rules they use fit the setting they want?

This isn't an option in AL games. Like I have said multiple times now, I don't allow Sorlock in my private games. Although I might go back on that and say that I'm house-ruling EB to be a class feature, not a cantrip.

Quote from: estar;1017145So a person whose magic was granted by his innate bloodline (Sorceror) can't make a pact with a demon (Warlock) and thus use both form of magic. How is permitted that is any less arbitrary than not permitting it?
 
Fuck doesn't anybody take responsibility for ensuring that the rules they use fit the setting they want?

Why would you think that's not what I'm doing (Your typical knee-jerk 5e defense aside)?

Someone who is a Sorcerer doesn't just have some form of blood within them, they have enough to give them innate powers others do not have.  They are fundamentally different than non-Sorcerers, they have a spirit, not a soul, can be Raised, not Resurrected, etc.  They can't swap out spells, which is one of the most idiotic things I've ever heard, but they do get to cast more spells per day.

The Warlock Pact is Faustian, they've given over their Soul to the being in exchange for Power, which gives them supernatural abilities.  They can't also worship as a Priest, they can't draw power from other sources, the Pact does not allow it.  It's a blessing and a curse.  They belong to the entity and it is fickle and jealous.

Similarly, you can't multiclass into Barbarian.  You either were born into a barbaric culture or not.

Quote from: estar;1017145The problem isn't the build culture the problem is the putting the rules before setting even one as generic as D&D style fantasy.

So the problem isn't the group doing the behavior, it's just the behavior itself? :D

Quote from: fearsomepirate;1017193This isn't an option in AL games. Like I have said multiple times now, I don't allow Sorlock in my private games. Although I might go back on that and say that I'm house-ruling EB to be a class feature, not a cantrip.

Why are you bitching then with AL games then? You are running somebody else's campaign and when you sign up you agree to play by their rules and use their interpretations not your own.

I get the appeal of running AL. For a decade I ran live action boffer events for NERO which had national guidelines for how events could be run. For a while I found it an interesting challenge to be able to run events within the constraints of live action and the national guidelines.

I got out of it due to the lack of time resulting from changes in my life circumstances. When I got the time again, I thought about going back but decided against it because after self publishing my own stuff I wasn't as interested in the challenge of marching to somebody else's tune.

But I still have friends who play NERO and when they start bitching about the constraints I remind them that what they signed up for. The alternative being starting up their own LARP.

Now going with your own LARP is a pretty major time sink. Saying to hell with AL and setting up your own game is considerably easier.

I ran a few AL events. But dropped it in favor of running my own stuff. In one game store I wiped out the AL session because everybody wanted to play in my games. Even the AL referee joined in my game.

Quote from: CRKrueger;1017196Someone who is a Sorcerer doesn't just have some form of blood within them, they have enough to give them innate powers others do not have.  They are fundamentally different than non-Sorcerers, they have a spirit, not a soul, can be Raised, not Resurrected, etc.

The Warlock Pact is Faustian, they've given over their Soul to the being in exchange for Power, which gives them supernatural abilities.  They can't also worship as a Priest, they can't draw power from other sources, the Pact does not allow it.  It's a blessing and a curse.  They belong to the entity and it is fickle and jealous.

That some decent metaphysics and if I was playing your campaign I would buy that as to why I can't multiclass warlock and sorceror. However the 5e RAW Rules for Resurrection, Warlocks and Sorcerors don't make that distinction between spirits and souls.

It equally plausible to say that the Sorcerors with innate ability to cast magic are just as capable of ordinary humans to make a pact.

Quote from: CRKrueger;1017196Similarly, you can't multiclass into Barbarian.  You either were born into a barbaric culture or not.

Again good reason to restrict multiclassing of barbarian. But the not the only way to few.

Another way to look at is like the old Conan paperbacks timeline were he was doing different things at different times. Which is why Dragon Magazine gave him Fighter and Thief levels in his write up for AD&D 1st edition. It plausible for a campaign to have a PC gain levels of barbarian IF he moved to Cimmeria, or Pictland and did the roleplaying and adventuring to justify gaining levels of barbarian.

Quote from: CRKrueger;1017196So the problem isn't the group doing the behavior, it's just the behavior itself? :D

That sound right. It easy to pick on Adventurer League, Forums, and Conventions because they are so visible but they are just the tip of very large iceberg.

My view when there are problems in tabletop roleplaying they either are interpersonal issue which has nothing to do with rules and everything to do with interpersonal dynamics. Or they stem from forgetting that the point is to play a campaign doing interesting thing in a setting and treating the as holy writ instead of the setting of the campaign.

You are spot on with your take on barbarian, sorcerers, and warlocks for your setting. Just as I am spot on for a hypothetical setting with my alternative takes. Neither one of is wrong or right. Just making different choices.

The only time the argument can be put forth that it is wrong if doesn't flow from the premise of the setting. If you stated the above about spirit and souls but allowed sorlocks then yeah I would say "Hey! CK that makes no fucking sense given what you said."

There is some metaphysics in D&D 5e but it is done with such a lite touch that it can be easily stripped out and subbed with something else. D&D 5e barbarian with a few tweaks becomes Adventures in Middle Earth's Slayer and my Majestic Wilderlands Berserker (http://www.batintheattic.com/downloads/MW%205e%20Berserker.pdf).  (think monster hunting holy warrior of Thor).

Some of this is in the immediate foreground for me as I am working on some Majestic Wilderlands 5e stuff for my player groups.

Quote from: estar;1017198Why are you bitching then with AL games then? You are running somebody else's campaign and when you sign up you agree to play by their rules and use their interpretations not your own.

Why are you bitching about me bitching about Warlock multiclassing? Why does anyone bitch about anything on the internet?

Rules problems are annoying because they create unwelcome surprises. You should know, as a DM, that it's difficult to go back on something after you discover it's a problem. Players don't like being told to change their class, to have a magic item taken away, etc. However, it is a huge point in 5e's favor that the only obnoxious MC surprise I have encountered has been 2 levels of Warlock + anything else CHA-based.

Furthermore, how does anyone know there's a rules loophole a priori? Because someone did them the favor of bitching about it on the internet. So here I am, bitching about Sorlock on the internet, outlining what the design decision is that led to the problem, and offering my opinions on how this can be fixed if you don't outright ban it. e.g.:

Quote from: S'mon;1017088This discussion certainly isn't prompting me to reconsider my not using the Multiclass optional rules!

I really think the only combo that's a problem in 5e is (Sorcerer or Bard) + 2xWarlock. And this is because they broke away from their own very well-thought, well-tested guiding principle on that one class. Every other class pretty strictly keys base damage output to class level. The Warlock is the only one that keyed it to character level, and I believe this was inadvertent. There are a variety of simple fixes:

-Don't allow Warlock as a MC option.
-Don't allow MC at all
-Don't allow Warlocks
-House rule for EB: additional EBs depend on your Warlock level, not your character level.

Quote from: fearsomepirate;1017230I really think the only combo that's a problem in 5e is (Sorcerer or Bard) + 2xWarlock. And this is because they broke away from their own very well-thought, well-tested guiding principle on that one class. Every other class pretty strictly keys base damage output to class level. The Warlock is the only one that keyed it to character level, and I believe this was inadvertent. There are a variety of simple fixes:

-Don't allow Warlock as a MC option.
-Don't allow MC at all
-Don't allow Warlocks
-House rule for EB: additional EBs depend on your Warlock level, not your character level.

Um... EB has the exact same wording as any other combat cantrip. Theres nothing indicating this is any different for the Warlock than any other class. And the Warlock doesnt synergize for spell slots with other caster classes at all. So if your Sorcerer or Bard takes 2 levels of Warlock then at total level 20 they are going to be casting at level 18. I see nothing in the PH exempting the Warlock from the level limit.

Quote from: fearsomepirate;1017230...

Furthermore, how does anyone know there's a rules loophole a priori? Because someone did them the favor of bitching about it on the internet. So here I am, bitching about Sorlock on the internet, outlining what the design decision is that led to the problem, and offering my opinions on how this can be fixed if you don't outright ban it...

My impression from listening to Jeremy Crawford is they excluded multi-classing from the core rules as it is very difficult for designers to predict what OP or game breaking combos players may come up with. So I don't think they will ever 'fix' it as MC is purely optional and is there for the min/maxers, same as it always was. If they tried to fix ever MC 'trick' they'd be tying themselved up in knots for a small minority of players who use the rule and care about such things.

Quote from: fearsomepirate;1017230Rules problems are annoying because they create unwelcome surprises. You should know, as a DM, that it's difficult to go back on something after you discover it's a problem. Players don't like being told to change their class, to have a magic item taken away, etc. However, it is a huge point in 5e's favor that the only obnoxious MC surprise I have encountered has been 2 levels of Warlock + anything else CHA-based.

Furthermore, how does anyone know there's a rules loophole a priori? Because someone did them the favor of bitching about it on the internet. So here I am, bitching about Sorlock on the internet, outlining what the design decision is that led to the problem, and offering my opinions on how this can be fixed if you don't outright ban it. e.g.:

Quote from: fearsomepirate;1017230Why are you bitching about me bitching about Warlock multiclassing? Why does anyone bitch about anything on the internet?

Because it neither a loophole or broken. It is the synergy of of two things that happens to do one thing really well and it relies on a mechanic that is explicitly stated as optional, multi-classing. The fix is straight forward and you listed some that doesn't involved banning multi-classing. Even if you don't apply any of fixes what you have a spell casting class who is tethered to a patron and is not free agent. The character is not totally at liberty to whatever the player likes. And there are the issue caused by whatever gives them their sorcerer powers. If a referee doesn't incorporate any of these limitation into their setting then they lose an important complication.

As for the combo itself it only a issue if the adventures in a campaign are solvable by killing everything in sight. In addition the boost in power means that the character is operating on a different playing field and will attract the attention of various powers that be. And if anything in the ensuing encounters requires competence beyond that one trick (dealing a lot of damage). The character is screwed.

If I was a PC in that party I would make sure all bases wee covered rather going "Hoody hoo! More firepower!". If the player throw caution to the wind and is hell bent to drag my character and the party into whatever hell they are intending to create I would consider offing them well before that point. The moment that character takes a patron, that patron problems will become my problem. The party and my character will in the field of view of what attention that character gets.

But if the campaign is mostly about "balanced" combat encounters then I concede it a loophole and it is broken.

Well, much to my surprise, I have found myself using those ridiculous tables in the section on encounter building. How, you might ask? I'm running Temple of Elemental Evil right now, and they are a handy reference to convert level to CR. So if the conversion of an NPC or monster isn't obvious at a glance, use HD as level, convert to CR, and there you go. To save myself some trouble, I figured out a line that fit their table, and it is roughly

CR = (HD - 0.5) / 2.5.

Seems to work pretty well for HD >= 3.

Quote from: Omega;1017246Um... EB has the exact same wording as any other combat cantrip.

This is plain wrong. Every other combat cantrip gets additional damage dice per tier. EB gets additional attacks per tier. That is what causes the cascading effect of silliness that leads to the high favorability of Sorlocks among min-maxers, because...

QuoteTheres nothing indicating this is any different for the Warlock than any other class.

Wrong! The key characteristic of the Warlock is various bonuses and effects that multiply with attacks. Every other class that behaves this way requires additional class levels to get those extra attacks.

QuoteAnd the Warlock doesnt synergize for spell slots with other caster classes at all.

Wrong. Warlock spells can be cast with any of your other Sorcerer slots, and warlock slots can be converted to Sorcery Points.

I've seen it in action; you're clearly theorycrafting. In action, it's dumb. Not "holy hell uh we need to reboot your character" levels of broken, but "Wait a minute...the Sorlock in the party is consistently hitting things harder than the actual Warlock, or any full Sorcerer I've seen in play. I'm not going to allow this at my table any more."

Quote from: fearsomepirate;1017307This is plain wrong. Every other combat cantrip gets additional damage dice per tier. EB gets additional attacks per tier. That is what causes the cascading effect of silliness that leads to the high favorability of Sorlocks among min-maxers, because...

Wrong! The key characteristic of the Warlock is various bonuses and effects that multiply with attacks. Every other class that behaves this way requires additional class levels to get those extra attacks.

Wrong. Warlock spells can be cast with any of your other Sorcerer slots, and warlock slots can be converted to Sorcery Points.

I've seen it in action; you're clearly theorycrafting. In action, it's dumb. Not "holy hell uh we need to reboot your character" levels of broken, but "Wait a minute...the Sorlock in the party is consistently hitting things harder than the actual Warlock, or any full Sorcerer I've seen in play. I'm not going to allow this at my table any more."

1: Um... you are aware that what you just described is the same thing right? Flame bolt does 1d10 per tier, topping out at 4d10. Eldrich bolt does 1d10 per bolt and gets one bolt per tier. Topping out at 4d10. If all four hit. EBs main advantage, depending on how you read it, is that you get to add your CHA mod to each bolt. Which does eventually get pretty good. One drawback is that EB suffers the standard ranged penalty at close range.

2: Um... you are aware other classes can stack bonuses as well. Again the only difference is EB stacks it onto multiple attacks. Depending on the wording this too can get fairly potent. But its the same as stacking bonuses on a fighters melee attacks.

3: um... you are aware you cant boost cantrips with spell slots right?

Quotelike most spells can a known cantrip be cast at a higher spell slot lvl. Aka sacred flame lvl 1 for 2d8 radiant dmg
    -- redwoodguardian August 24, 2015

    No, since cantrips don't use spell slots. https://t.co/MKpg8oozyf
    -- Jeremy Crawford (JeremyECrawford) August 24, 2015

Yes. You can convert sorcery points into evocations and evocations into SP. So you can cast your warlock spells potentially past their first level limits. But so can every other caster. Hardly any of the 1st level warlock spells benefit in a significant way from casting with a higher slot. Armour of Agathys and Arms of Hadar comes to mind right off. This came up in an older thread.

You can do that with any of the other classes that grant a bonus to damage somehow. Few though get the level of oomph from it the warlock does. Or get it differently.

Theorycrafting? Try again please. You fail at trolling.

Speaking of theorycrafting, one thing I never understood about 5e's spellcasting rules was why you could only cast a cantrip if you cast a spell already in the turn.

What if you had a spell that was an Action, and then wanted to cast another with a Bonus Action? But you can't. I never got why.

Quote from: mAcular Chaotic;1017320Speaking of theorycrafting, one thing I never understood about 5e's spellcasting rules was why you could only cast a cantrip if you cast a spell already in the turn.

What if you had a spell that was an Action, and then wanted to cast another with a Bonus Action? But you can't. I never got why.

Cantrips are for when all the big combat spells are gone for the day.

Quote from: mAcular Chaotic;1017320Speaking of theorycrafting, one thing I never understood about 5e's spellcasting rules was why you could only cast a cantrip if you cast a spell already in the turn.

What if you had a spell that was an Action, and then wanted to cast another with a Bonus Action? But you can't. I never got why.

It's just to limit spellcaster power.

Yeah, but does it make that big a difference? I can't really imagine anything breaking or becoming lopsided by letting a spellcaster use a spell that costs an action, and then one that costs a bonus action.

Quote from: mAcular Chaotic;1017345Yeah, but does it make that big a difference? I can't really imagine anything breaking or becoming lopsided by letting a spellcaster use a spell that costs an action, and then one that costs a bonus action.

Yes I think the game would work ok without it.
Concentration is a far bigger preventer of god wizards.

Quote from: Omega;10173181: Um... you are aware that what you just described is the same thing right? Flame bolt does 1d10 per tier, topping out at 4d10. Eldrich bolt does 1d10 per bolt and gets one bolt per tier.

Um...2nd level warlock with AB and RB mean EB gets +1d10 + CHA + 10 knockback per tier. With Hex, that's an additional +1d6 damage per tier. This is the only class where a 2-level dip gets you access to damage that scales this way.

I have made it abundantly clear that I have been talking about taking two levels of Warlock, not one. Are you dumb, or are you just trolling? Fact is, neither option makes you worth talking to about this any further.

Quote from: mAcular Chaotic;1017320Speaking of theorycrafting, one thing I never understood about 5e's spellcasting rules was why you could only cast a cantrip if you cast a spell already in the turn.

It prevents Sorcerers from dual-Fireballing, clerics from stacking Cure Wounds with Healing Word, and so on. There is a great deal of mischief you can get into if you can cast two full spells on a turn. However, the rule as worded (which technically prevents only combining Bonus Action and Action spells) doesn't prevent an Eldritch Knight from casting two spells using Action Surge.

It's probably not as big an issue with Healing Word, but I've heard from people who have house-ruled it that it gets out of control with Sorcerers.

I feel it is a reasonable but unnecessary precaution against a threat that never materialized in the new edition, but could have. 3e certainly had a bunch of action-economy shenanigans where a particularly well-built and well-prepared nova build that got the drop/won initiative could lay down two area-effecting or save-or-suck effects (each of which resisted by two different defenses, with few if any opponents strong in both) which wrecked havoc with the game balance.

As much as I say that 5e isn't D&D 3e, attempt number four, it clearly has some antibodies in its' system to prevent catching the same diseases.

Quote from: fearsomepirate;1017370It prevents Sorcerers from dual-Fireballing, clerics from stacking Cure Wounds with Healing Word, and so on. There is a great deal of mischief you can get into if you can cast two full spells on a turn. However, the rule as worded (which technically prevents only combining Bonus Action and Action spells) doesn't prevent an Eldritch Knight from casting two spells using Action Surge.

It's probably not as big an issue with Healing Word, but I've heard from people who have house-ruled it that it gets out of control with Sorcerers.

I thought that was the whole point with Sorcs.

Quote from: mAcular Chaotic;1017380I thought that was the whole point with Sorcs.

Nope. If you use Quickened Spell to turn a Fireball into a bonus action, you can only follow up with a cantrip or non-spell action. For example, if a couple of gnolls move up and start kicking your ass, you can Disengage and then use Quickened Spell to blast them with a Lightning Bolt. If a Hill Giant is bearing down on the party, you could hit him with Ray of Frost...but you miss, so you use Quickened Spell to drop Web on him instead. Or maybe you got hit by a random encounter in the middle of the night, so you use your action to rouse the Fighter, then a Quickened Spell to cast Enlarge on him.

There are certain Concentration spells that allow you to use your Action on subsequent turns (like Sunbeam) to do things; these can be combined with Quickened Spell. For example, you can use your Action to take precise control of the target of Dominate Person. Quickened Spell would allow you to do this and hit somebody in the face with Scorching Ray.

In fact, it seems like the whole point of the bonus action rule is to stop sorcs from one-shotting a crowd of CR 2 monsters, since other than healing spells, the other bonus action spells aren't really that absurd if combined with a full spell on the same turn.

Thank God for that restriction, being able to cast two spells in a round sounds terrible to me. Too easy to abuse.

Quote from: fearsomepirate;1017386Nope. If you use Quickened Spell to turn a Fireball into a bonus action, you can only follow up with a cantrip or non-spell action. For example, if a couple of gnolls move up and start kicking your ass, you can Disengage and then use Quickened Spell to blast them with a Lightning Bolt. If a Hill Giant is bearing down on the party, you could hit him with Ray of Frost...but you miss, so you use Quickened Spell to drop Web on him instead. Or maybe you got hit by a random encounter in the middle of the night, so you use your action to rouse the Fighter, then a Quickened Spell to cast Enlarge on him.

There are certain Concentration spells that allow you to use your Action on subsequent turns (like Sunbeam) to do things; these can be combined with Quickened Spell. For example, you can use your Action to take precise control of the target of Dominate Person. Quickened Spell would allow you to do this and hit somebody in the face with Scorching Ray.

In fact, it seems like the whole point of the bonus action rule is to stop sorcs from one-shotting a crowd of CR 2 monsters, since other than healing spells, the other bonus action spells aren't really that absurd if combined with a full spell on the same turn.

Maybe it could be a Sorc only restriction then.

Well, I say that, but then it opens up a lot of untested pairings that I'm sure could cause mischief, like casting Guiding Bolt and Spiritual Weapon on the same turn, goosing healing, etc. Should a Cleric be able to raise two downed warriors using 2 1st-level slots (Healing Word and Cure Wounds) rather than one use of Mass Healing Word at minimum? I think it's something that just doesn't need changing.

I understand that this sort of complex strategizing is a feature for many players, and I wish them all well, but it is a major turn off for me. It has the feel of one of those elaborate, rules-y card games where the point is to figure out the cleverest combination. I'm happy to have a certain amount of complexity in a table top roleplaying game, but I am only willing to wrestle with this sort of thing if it is either intrinsically cool (like the magic and summoning in Lion and Dragon), or leads to some sort of immersive, relatively realistic dueling combat simulation (like TFT or GURPS). Rules that are just about themselves (i.e., figuring out how to make the little tricks and combos work best) are not interesting to me.

I think the general prohibition against two spells is as much about simplifying what a player can do, as anything to do with tactical balance.  For one thing, it cuts out an immense amount of analysis paralysis for certain types of players.  They have a hard enough time prioritizing which single thing is most important right now.  Given them combos to weigh in significance is not doing them any favors.  The rule is easy to remember, as well--unless it's one of the exceptions called out for you, such as cantrips, or Eldritch Knight options, etc.--then you can cast zero or one spells on your turn.

True, I think reducing most turns down to one action/choice contributes to the speedier play as well.

Quote from: mAcular Chaotic;1017320Speaking of theorycrafting, one thing I never understood about 5e's spellcasting rules was why you could only cast a cantrip if you cast a spell already in the turn.

What if you had a spell that was an Action, and then wanted to cast another with a Bonus Action? But you can't. I never got why.

Some spells can be cast as a bonus action.

Overall its to keep mages from outpacing fighters. And also its due to how the spells are structured. cantrips are second nature so you probably can snap one off after casting a spell. And some spells are so quick to cast that you can pop one off as a bonus action or a reaction after casting a spell.

I notated my PHB with which spells are castable as bonus actions.

Quote from: mAcular Chaotic;1017320Speaking of theorycrafting, one thing I never understood about 5e's spellcasting rules was why you could only cast a cantrip if you cast a spell already in the turn.

What if you had a spell that was an Action, and then wanted to cast another with a Bonus Action? But you can't. I never got why.

I dont see why you couldnt allow casting a bonus action spell with a regular action spell. But allmost all the bonus action spells are Paladin smites and Ranger arrow spells, or are non-com spells. So it might be a moot point. Other than that the DM just has to make sure the players arent abusing short rests or are made aware that short rests may not be available at points and so blowing all their spells may leave them with just cantrips for a span. But used sparingly or for emergencies there shouldnt be a problem. Like a Ranger casting Conjure Barrage and Lightning Arrow.

I think the reason for the rule they realized most of the unintentional failures of 3.x design came from unforeseen interactions. The 5e rules are written with lots of safeguards to minimize the way things can interact.

Quote from: fearsomepirate;1017847I think the reason for the rule they realized most of the unintentional failures of 3.x design came from unforeseen interactions. The 5e rules are written with lots of safeguards to minimize the way things can interact.

I definitely think it has worked so far, I have seen spellcasters up to 18th level now and no issues on challenging the party; battles rarely feel trivial or grindy. Some splatbook stuff seems superior to PHB material (eg Bladesinger) but never in a game-breaking way. The issues I had with balance were solved by going over to 1 week long rests, this encourages PCs to face the intended number of fights per LR (6-8 per book, probably still 3-8 in practice) rather than have a 10 minute adventuring day.

I have my PHB notated with what spells are bonus or reaction spells and this is what came up with so far.

Bard 1
Cleric & Druid 3
Paladin 11
Ranger 6
Sorcerer 2
Warlock & Wizard 3

And aside from the Warlock only the Paladin and Ranger get any substantial combat bonus action spells. So yeah, Its not going to likely unbalance things unless you have like a whole party of Rangers and Paladins. and even then theres limited spells to combo with.