What do you wish to see released in Xanathar's Guide to Everything?

[CrackedChair]

So we know very little about this new book, other than the fact it will include options for both players and DM's.

But what do you wish to see in this book?

[GlenSmash!]

Revised Ranger's final form
Ancestral Guardians Barbarian
Zealot Barbarian
Stone Sorcerer

Not the Lore Wizard

[Spacehamster]

1/3rd divine caster fighter

[Aett_Thorn]

Revised Ranger

Revised 4-Elements Monk

Official new subclasses from the UAs, such as:
Blade and Whisper College Bards (Glamour, too, if they give it a decent Level 14 feature)
Raven Queen and Hexblade Warlock
Forge and Grave Clerics
etc.

Some new weapon types and spells would be nice, too.

[robbie374]

Revised Ranger
All the new Sorcerers
Lore Wizard and Theurgy Wizard (I know they said only one, but I can hope, can't I?)
Forge Cleric
Raven Queen Warlock

[Easy_Lee]

Arcane half-caster equivalent to a paladin or monk. No way we're getting this, but a guy can dream.

[ShuckedAeons]

Either new weapons to fill in the gaps in the weapons table, or an official system for creating your own weapons

[Clone]

I'd like to see some content which wasn't in the UA, just a surprise.

Other then that I'm thoroughly enjoying the Stone Sorcerer and DMing a Storm Barbarian.
Hexblade and some cool invocations for warlock would be nice.
I'd love some feats which either included the additional races from Volos/ Elemental Evil in the Racial section or have a batch of new feats which granted abilities to certain classes, or took some features from class archetypes and helped spread them around for building concepts instead of sometimes needing to multiclass to properly fit some ideas.

Oh and spells. Spells which go into the range of 3rd - 5th level spells, maybe even the same number which we got in Elemental Evil. THAT would be cool.

[Nifft]

Support for more (and better) settings.

I am prepared for disappointment. :annoyed:

[Ravinsild]

For the love of God Almighty and all things Holy please for sure 100% include:
- Revised Ranger as baseline. Hell reprint all current and future PHB with this fix.
- Beast Conclave is a MUST HAVE fix
- Hexblade Warlock for a competent Warlock Gish (It was a 3e/4e class too)
- Phoenix Sorcerer fleshed out
- That seabound adventures Minotaur race called Krynn or whatever
- Conquest Paladin Oath
- Redemption Paladin Oath
- Tyranny Paladin Oath
- Anti-Paladin Paladin Oath

- Player Character Gnolls (it's not in a UA but please, seriously, at least 1 other guy other than me must enjoy Gnolls right? No one wants to play one but me?)

That's my wishlist of absolutely essential must have things that I can't live without.

[JackPhoenix]

Disclaimer that this is the last book for FR and WotC will start releasing books based on actually interesting settings.

[Chunkosaurus]

Revised Ranger

Revised 4-Elements Monk

Official new subclasses from the UAs, such as:
Blade and Whisper College Bards (Glamour, too, if they give it a decent Level 14 feature)
Raven Queen and Hexblade Warlock
Forge and Grave Clerics
etc.

Some new weapon types and spells would be nice, too.

Add the stone sorcerer and this is basically a perfect list for me

[Christopher K.]

I'm hoping for a little more content the Oath of Redemption Paladin. I'm not sure what form that'd take, but maybe revising the AC enhancing ability to not be Dexterity so that level dips in Monk weren't super-important to the oath to not split between STR and DEX?

[Potato_Priest]

All the UA barbarian, cleric, ranger, and druid options

A balanced sharpshooter

The UA warlock stuff

A revised mystic

Above all, feats for skills and races. Those were my favorite UAs.

[Tetrasodium]

So we know very little about this new book, other than the fact it will include options for both players and DM's.

But what do you wish to see in this book?

"we are proud to announce our next three books will be a campaign setting book for eberron & at least two books to support it"

[Petrocorus]

A revised revised Ranger, one without a limit to spells known and a proper boost to tracking and stealth.

Obviously the new Beastmaster.

Psionics, i known i will be disappointed.

A Strength option for the Monk, the Kensaï maybe.

Some spells i miss from 3.5, like Phase Door.

Actual crafting rules.

Better guidelines for skills, because the "up to the DM" is really too much for this. I known that's not going to happen.

[Findulidas]

More domains, more druid circles a lore wizard which isnt op but still gives expertise in arcana. Some more balanced races and general feats. Shardmind would be nice. Perhaps a variant of green flame blade which isnt fire. Its my own wishes.

[GlenSmash!]

All the UA barbarian, cleric, ranger, and druid options

A balanced sharpshooter

The UA warlock stuff

A revised mystic

Above all, feats for skills and races. Those were my favorite UAs.

Oh I forgot about those Feats. Yeah those too.

[HidesHisEyes]

A revised revised Ranger, one without a limit to spells known and a proper boost to tracking and stealth.

Obviously the new Beastmaster.

Psionics, i known i will be disappointed.

A Strength option for the Monk, the Kensaï maybe.

Some spells i miss from 3.5, like Phase Door.

Actual crafting rules.

Better guidelines for skills, because the "up to the DM" is really too much for this. I known that's not going to happen.

I hope that doesn't happen. I love the freedom of being able to use skills however I like in my game. I mean, I still could even if they published lists of the DC modifiers for different types of handholds for climb checks or how the weather affects Survival DCs or whatever, but I mean I like that they have made "rulings over rules" as their philosophy for 5E and I wouldn't want to see them go back on that. Not having a go at you, just saying the skill system as it stands suits my play style.

Having said that, the only thing I'm genuinely interested in is some good guidance for... well, everything outside of combat. A decent system for handling wilderness travel, a way of making it matter whether a player succeeds on a check to search a room or pick a lock, that kind of thing. I don't think going into more detail on how to use the existing skill system is helpful for this; I know how to use the skill system, what I need is ways to make it meaningful in my game. I doubt we'll get anything like this since if they cared to have any decent ideas along these lines they would have put them in the DMG, instead of the tract of unhelpful waffle they gave us.

Also yes, an official revised ranger.

[Lolzyking]

I kinda hope it doesn't have rev ranger, as a ranger BM player I despise how it limits companion choices instead of the any cr1/4

[HidesHisEyes]

"we are proud to announce our next three books will be a campaign setting book for eberron & at least two books to support it"

I really don't understand the hatred for Forgotten Realms that seems to pervade the hobby, but if they've said this then I think that's pretty exciting. I can see myself getting really into an Ebberon campaign.

[alchahest]

Disclaimer that this is the last book for FR and WotC will start releasing books based on actually interesting settings.

yes please, I'd like this too!

[alchahest]

I kinda hope it doesn't have rev ranger, as a ranger BM player I despise how it limits companion choices instead of the any cr1/4

the limited choices get the benefit of having advancement and survivability. I suppose you could always ask your GM to trade advancing your beast for havnig a static low HP low saves low AC low damage beast that you can pick from a wider selection for..

[Nifft]

I really don't understand the hatred for Forgotten Realms that seems to pervade the hobby, but if they've said this then I think that's pretty exciting. I can see myself getting really into an Ebberon campaign.

There's nothing wrong with FR in the FR books.

There's something very wrong with FR in all the books, and only FR books ever being published.

[Lolzyking]

the limited choices get the benefit of having advancement and survivability. I suppose you could always ask your GM to trade advancing your beast for havnig a static low HP low saves low AC low damage beast that you can pick from a wider selection for..
The choices they gave us were all cr 1/4th that were already available, the arguement is that there was nothing wrong with giving all the new stuff and keeping the choice of any cr 1/4

You end up in a odd place where all the ranger pet choices are forest based despite their being the option to play coastal , mountainous , desert rangers ect

[guachi]

Fighter - Scout.

The one from the UA is simple and works well. Add a bit more pizzazz and you have the exploration focused Fighter many ask for.

[Ralanr]

More barbarian subclasses. I can only play Totem Warrior so much.

[Paeleus]

More metamagics pls.

I've seen some Homebrew out there that had to have been inspired by Lore Master Wizard's Spell Secrets and Alchemical Casting features that didn't seem too bad. But they can keep the 1 mile casting and alteration on target's saving throw stat.

[Lolzyking]

Specifically I like using the cr 1/8 giant crab as A bm companion for a coastal themed ranger

[Kane0]

Ancestral/rage mage/revised frenzy Barbarian
Forge/Grave Cleric. A fate one might be cool too
Summonspam/healer druid
revised fighter w/ Knight/hexblade subclasses (hexblade as a lock patron is awkward and steps on blade pact)
Kensei monk
Revised ranger w/ arcane archer subclass
Tyranny paladin
Brute/scout rogue
Shapechanger sorcerer
Celestial warlock
Theurge wizard, plus a universalist school

Extra fighting styles, maneuvers, metamagic, invocations, feats and spells. Also downtime options, alternative class features, alternative racial traits and bundles of optional rules.

I'd be happy with half of this or more.

[Tetrasodium]

I really don't understand the hatred for Forgotten Realms that seems to pervade the hobby, but if they've said this then I think that's pretty exciting. I can see myself getting really into an Ebberon campaign.

Nifft nailed it, so I'll quote him.

There's nothing wrong with FR in the FR books.

There's something very wrong with FR in all the books, and only FR books ever being published.

my post had nothing to do with "hatred" for FR, I've been runing an AL game at a FLGS set in eberron for months now & started a second one on a different night just a couple weeks back. Don't like that I run s lot of my own stuff set in a world that WotC hasn't even published books for?... there are like 3-5 other tables each night not counting the 3-5 on the night I play in someone else's game. Never had anyone care.

I prefer running eberron over FR because eberron does not exist in tens to hundreds of millennia or more where civilization has been locked in medieval stasis (tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/MedievalStasis) & ripples can be expected to have various movers & shakers reacting/ognoring the ripples based on very simple logic. I can't do that if I run FR games because there are way too many world spanning organizations with massive reach & significant power who don't actually do much of anything but stand around with the tabletop equivalent of a yellow ! over their heads.
as to why people have "hatred" for FR, there is a really long thread on that here (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?526375-Why-do-people-hate-the-forgotten-realms&highlight=hate+forgotten+realms). Not only that, but I can trivially extrapolate historical stuff based on logic & knowledge of a few key ancient civilizations wirthout needing to keep track of 42 different completely isolated civilizations that may or may not have interacted with each other casused/been toppled by any number of spellplague/sundering type events or what have you

The books that I want to see are an ECS/ECG/PGE type thing, an eberron themed MM because I'm sick & effing tired of having to strip the "shared lore (https://twitter.com/mikemearls/status/883891093829332992)" out of everything while wondering what an eberron refluffed version of $creature would fluff to, and a guide to eberron's planes because PotA 249 admits " Eberron lacks the traditional elemental planes, so you'll have to replace them with the following (with the understanding that they aren't perfect matches)" & keith baker has mentioned that it's something he wants to be allowed to finally write in ways that moved me from "I usually avoid the planes when I gm" to "you know, I'm really curious & think I might want to use them more".

[Kite474]

For the love of God Almighty and all things Holy please for sure 100% include:

- Player Character Gnolls (it's not in a UA but please, seriously, at least 1 other guy other than me must enjoy Gnolls right? No one wants to play one but me?)

That's my wishlist of absolutely essential must have things that I can't live without.

Here, here! I love Gnolls and am really sad they weren't included in Volo's

As for my personal wishlist

Hexblade: as much as Bladepact was wonky I really love the concept of it and Hexblade allows it to really shine

Druid Circles. All of them: All of them are really fun and cool so I would love to see them finalized

Forge Cleric: I am the bone of my sword (for when I am not Sorceradin!)

More rules for running the game outside of combat: It's time to make the "three pillars" actually equal

A lot more magic items: Current selection leaves a lot to be desired and more is always fun for GMs and Players.

More feets for noncombat purposes that are actually worth taking

Also an announcement for Ebberron and Darksun.... and if I can wish upon a star Birthright

[strangebloke]

Sorcerer had some fun subclasses. Stone and shadow come to mind. Ancestral barbarian is baller.

Feats, fighting styles, and spells are where it's at though.

[Lombra]

I'd like kuo-toa and bullywug player race options, but I think that it's not gonna happen in this book.

[jitzul]

Longshot but monk rework where stunning strike is not a class feature.

[Lombra]

Longshot but monk rework where stunning strike is not a class feature.

Why shouldn't it? Would you leave it to open-hand?

[Draco4472]

Hexblade is what I'm most hoping for, I'm a sucker for casters with great melee options.

[KorvinStarmast]

Hexblade is what I'm most hoping for, I'm a sucker for casters with great melee options.
Revised Ranger.
Raven Queen Warlock.
I also like the Celestial patron based warlock, and hope it makes the cut. ( Warlock: The Celestial)
There are a bunch of neat new invocations from one of the UAs, hope a few of them make the cut. (The green Lord's gift isn't a bad one, but it is not sharable with the party. )
Maybe another path for druids: Circle of the Shepherd has potential.
Something for the elemental monk
As other said, something more for a barbarian. The SCAG barbarian additions were sorta "meh."
Fighter Scout: yeah, I'd like to see that.
Another Bard College.
Not interested in seeing:
Gnoll player characters.
Eberron ...
Any more wizard sub classes/archetypes/schools

Mixed bag: mystic/psionic

There has certainly been plenty of effort put into that, not sure where it's going.

I can dream:
Dark Sun; not happening soon, but that would be nice to see again.
More parts of the FR: it's a big place.

[HidesHisEyes]

Nifft nailed it, so I'll quote him.


my post had nothing to do with "hatred" for FR, I've been runing an AL game at a FLGS set in eberron for months now & started a second one on a different night just a couple weeks back. Don't like that I run s lot of my own stuff set in a world that WotC hasn't even published books for?... there are like 3-5 other tables each night not counting the 3-5 on the night I play in someone else's game. Never had anyone care.

I prefer running eberron over FR because eberron does not exist in tens to hundreds of millennia or more where civilization has been locked in medieval stasis (tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/MedievalStasis) & ripples can be expected to have various movers & shakers reacting/ognoring the ripples based on very simple logic. I can't do that if I run FR games because there are way too many world spanning organizations with massive reach & significant power who don't actually do much of anything but stand around with the tabletop equivalent of a yellow ! over their heads.
as to why people have "hatred" for FR, there is a really long thread on that here (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?526375-Why-do-people-hate-the-forgotten-realms&highlight=hate+forgotten+realms). Not only that, but I can trivially extrapolate historical stuff based on logic & knowledge of a few key ancient civilizations wirthout needing to keep track of 42 different completely isolated civilizations that may or may not have interacted with each other casused/been toppled by any number of spellplague/sundering type events or what have you

The books that I want to see are an ECS/ECG/PGE type thing, an eberron themed MM because I'm sick & effing tired of having to strip the "shared lore (https://twitter.com/mikemearls/status/883891093829332992)" out of everything while wondering what an eberron refluffed version of $creature would fluff to, and a guide to eberron's planes because PotA 249 admits " Eberron lacks the traditional elemental planes, so you'll have to replace them with the following (with the understanding that they aren't perfect matches)" & keith baker has mentioned that it's something he wants to be allowed to finally write in ways that moved me from "I usually avoid the planes when I gm" to "you know, I'm really curious & think I might want to use them more".

That's all fair enough. Personally I view the volume of available material about FR as its main strength. I know that I can open the SCAG or the online wiki, choose a location and find maps and information and start piecing stuff together into adventure ideas. Games I run take place in my version of the Realms, which is whatever I want it to be. I don't worry about how the stories my friends and I play through interact with every single "canon" detail. The published material is a springboard really, and it's nice to have a detailed, rich springboard with a lot of content easily available.

I can certainly see how that's not going to be the case for everyone though. I can also see myself getting bored of FR at some point, so I agree that proper books for other settings would be very welcome - lore, monster manuals, character options. Let's hope that is what they're planning.

[robbie374]

I posted earlier, but I wanted to agree with other comments and add:

Revised Ranger, but with all the current companion options
Feats for skills
Feats for races expanded to include Volo's and EE races, etc.
-- also, balance the feats. UA had crazy awesome feats for some races like Dragonborn, and pretty lame ones for other races like Gnomes.
New Beasts
-- higher CR options, giving more choices at ever CR level and going higher than CR 8. I want to be able to choose other things than T-Rexes to Polymorph into!
-- beasts from a wide variety of terrain. There should be a few beasts at every CR level for every major terrain and environment type. I don't care if they are largely re-skinned versions of existing monsters, though they should have some unique characteristics, and perhaps characteristics that are common to other beasts from the same environment.
-- More fey and good-aligned creatures would be nice, too.
Improved Downtime and Crafting Rules
-- Crafting should be consistent across mundane and magical crafting
-- Gaining new proficiencies should be more clearly spelled out
-- Earning a new feat would be a cool use of downtime
-- These should all be time/cost balanced with each other, and maybe linked to level or ability modifiers
---- Becoming proficient in a skill should be easier for someone with a higher relevant ability modifier
---- Your proficiency bonus should be related to the time and/or cost of things

[Ravinsild]

I want to see 2 more things:

- Gnoll Player Character option

- Dark Sun official Campaign with Mul and Thri-kreen and all that
- Brawler/Wrestler/Grappler Fighting Style for Fighter class similar to the 4th Edition subclass

All of the above was officially supported in 4th Edition. I think it would work alright in 5th if transferred properly.

[alchahest]

yesss, a non-monk brawler who actually uses strength to punch things!

[Ravinsild]

yesss, a non-monk brawler who actually uses strength to punch things!

I don't know if it worked in RAW, but in a 1 shot adventure for 4th I had a Gnoll Brawler Fighter with the Gnoll Claws feat. The Brawler worked best by having a weapon in one hand and being unarmed in the other. However Gnoll Claws basically made you have daggers or better for your unarmed hand, similar to monk martial arts. Using Rain of Blows with the Gnoll off-hand while pinning a guy on the ground for an MMA ground and pound experience was one of the most satisfying D&D moments I've had.

I'd like it to be a real thing in 5th edition too.

[Sariel Vailo]

Id like more races and to see the "unearthed arcana" as legal in al

[Jama7301]

I'd like to see some rules for base building - rough costs and levels you would expect to have certain commodities, defenses available, maybe a section about building an adventure around a home base.

I'd be interested in some alternative combat rules as well, either new maneuvers, new rules for grappling larger enemies, large scale battles, or even quick combat rules.

[rbstr]

We're getting most of the more recent UA class option stuff. Hopefully touched up from feedback ect.
They had said 20-something new archetypes, I thought?

So, besides things we kinda sorta know already:
I really hope for new Weapon Feats. Fellhanded, improved Blade Mastery, maybe something to throw a bone to versatile weapons?
New Spells, including most of that starter spell UA.

[sightlessrealit]

Mystic as is,
Artificer slightly tweeked
Lore Wizard
Succubus Race(A guy can dream)
Inquisitive Rogue
Even more feats

[dagger]

More FR since it's the most interesting setting would be nice, and the lore wizard.

Also anything archer (non ranger) and more feats would be outstanding.

[King539]

Time or Fate Cleric.

[Desteplo]

Thrown weapon subclass, feats, fighting style
-Balanced revised ranger (11 to 10)
-race feats
-gnoll (all about that fur, bout that fur)
-utility feats (polished grappler, keen mind-esque)

-polished DM UA

[Petrocorus]

Not having a go at you,
Not thinking you are.


just saying the skill system as it stands suits my play style.
I see your point, but seriously a few more and more precise guidelines wouldn't hurt. Especially for inexperienced DM. For instance, is it possible to train an animal with Animal Handling? And how?



Having said that, the only thing I'm genuinely interested in is some good guidance for... well, everything outside of combat. A decent system for handling wilderness travel,

You mean one with travel speed that could actually vary with your mean of transportation?



a way of making it matter whether a player succeeds on a check to search a room or pick a lock, that kind of thing. I don't think going into more detail on how to use the existing skill system is helpful for this; I know how to use the skill system, what I need is ways to make it meaningful in my game.
Which is part of the guideline i'm advocating. Right now, the very scope of what is possible and impossible with skills (and tools too, for what matters) is not really defined and hence very blurry. It basically rely on the common sense and general knowledge of the DM who may end up finding himself having to reinvent the wheel in the middle of a session. "Ruling over rules" is not bad at all, and i like it too, i just think they have gone too far with it.


I doubt we'll get anything like this since if they cared to have any decent ideas along these lines they would have put them in the DMG, instead of the tract of unhelpful waffle they gave us.

Yep, with relevant bits spread out in the not most obvious parts.



Also yes, an official revised ranger.
And a better one the UA one who still need some tinkering, but that's another debate.



There's nothing wrong with FR in the FR books.

There's something very wrong with FR in all the books, and only FR books ever being published.
Totally supporting this.

[Maxilian]

For the love of God Almighty and all things Holy please for sure 100% include:
- Revised Ranger as baseline. Hell reprint all current and future PHB with this fix.
- Beast Conclave is a MUST HAVE fix
- Hexblade Warlock for a competent Warlock Gish (It was a 3e/4e class too)
- Phoenix Sorcerer fleshed out
- That seabound adventures Minotaur race called Krynn or whatever
- Conquest Paladin Oath
- Redemption Paladin Oath
- Tyranny Paladin Oath
- Anti-Paladin Paladin Oath

- Player Character Gnolls (it's not in a UA but please, seriously, at least 1 other guy other than me must enjoy Gnolls right? No one wants to play one but me?)

That's my wishlist of absolutely essential must have things that I can't live without.

You really like paladins, it seens, that if given the chance, you would play a Gnoll Paladin

[Maxilian]

I really hope to see.

-Hexblade Warlock (have some couple character ideas with this)
-Raven Queen Warlock (A fun warlock concept, not as combat centric as others but quite nice) -The Raven ability could do with a small buff though
-Celestial Warlock (I welcome more healing options... always)

-Storm Herald Barbarians (I though it was a really interesting and, most likely, popular concept -a elemental barbarian? sing me in!)
-Zealot Barbarian (It was weird, and fun, and in my book, that's good) -Need tweaks though

-Revised Ranger (Noone will disagree with this)
-Beast Conclave (I really like the BM option in the PHB, but this is an improvement for most people and its a nice, less confusing way to use the pets)
-Primeval Ranger (So fun, so thematic, and quite unique)

-Arcane Archer Fighter (Can fill a big niche that many people would have wanted to fill with EK)

-Way of Tranquility Monk (Again, i welcome any other healing options, i also love the theme -have the true Monk feel to it IMHO)
-Kensai Monk (mainly because it opens the door to many interesting character concepts)

-Stone Sorcerer (A nice way to give the Sorcerer a different playstyle without changing the class much)
-Sea Sorcerer (quite fun, quite interesting, need some work though)

Also hope to see some of the Race specific Feats, like the Tieflings ones, i really liked those.

[Tetrasodium]

You really like paladins, it seens, that if given the chance, you would play a Gnoll Paladin
FR gnolls are not representative of gnolls in every setting. for example, eberron has the znir pact gnolls (http://www.wizards.com/files/367_Playing_Gnolls.pdf) which are wildly dfifferent and pretty much have no FR equivalent to compare them against

[HidesHisEyes]

Not thinking you are.


I see your point, but seriously a few more and more precise guidelines wouldn't hurt. Especially for inexperienced DM. For instance, is it possible to train an animal with Animal Handling? And how?


You mean one with travel speed that could actually vary with your mean of transportation?


Which is part of the guideline i'm advocating. Right now, the very scope of what is possible and impossible with skills (and tools too, for what matters) is not really defined and hence very blurry. It basically rely on the common sense and general knowledge of the DM who may end up finding himself having to reinvent the wheel in the middle of a session. "Ruling over rules" is not bad at all, and i like it too, i just think they have gone too far with it.


Yep, with relevant bits spread out in the not most obvious parts.


And a better one the UA one who still need some tinkering, but that's another debate.



Totally supporting this.

I see what we mean. I think we're after the same things. Your first post just made me think of previous editions/other d20 games that had huge lists of situational modifiers for DCs of different skills, and I don't think any of it was useful.

I think in 5E it's easier than ever for a DM, even an inexperienced one, to decide what the DC for a task should be, and you can just give a player advantage or disadvantage if there's some reason why it's warranted. All of this is a grey area in the rules because it's up to each group to find what works for them, which is as it should be.

What IS missing is a surefire way of making all these decisions meaningful. Some kind of context and structure that provides easy answers to questions like "what happens if they fail this check? Can they just try again? What does it cost them to keep trying until they succeed?"

All of which exists in combat because the rules are highly developed. But other areas of the game could do with some sub-systems of their own IMO. Like you mention, training an animal and travelling through the wilderness. Angry DM has actually started work on creating this kind of thing on his blog, but it's one of several article series and so it's slow progress.

[JackPhoenix]

FR gnolls are not representative of gnolls in every setting. for example, eberron has the znir pact gnolls (http://www.wizards.com/files/367_Playing_Gnolls.pdf) which are wildly dfifferent and pretty much have no FR equivalent to compare them against

inb4 "Eberron gnolls are now also mindless monsters, because we have to twist each setting to fit with core fluff". Example: "Lizardfolk were dragonborn all along" "Baator is a thing"

[HidesHisEyes]

inb4 "Eberron gnolls are now also mindless monsters, because we have to twist each setting to fit with core fluff". Example: "Lizardfolk were dragonborn all along" "Baator is a thing"

Remember the books specifically say that the setting lore they present is one setting, and the one you actually use at your table is another, which can be based as little or as much on published material. And that would be true even if the books didn't say it. In the FR games I run there's no such thing as a spellplague or a sundering, no Time of Troubles and the gods are very distant and largely non-interventionist. That's just the way I like it. Gnolls are the ravenous monsters described in the MM, but only because I like that idea too.

Edit: oh and Drizzt and Elminster are dead, they're the legendary heroes of bygone eras. They're cool and all but I don't want them around to steal the PCs' thunder.

All setting lore is a springboard as far as I'm concerned.

[jas61292]

First off, like many people I'd like a revised ranger. But, unlike some people, I do not want it as it currently is. Eliminating the base ranger's exploration features, and overstuffing level 1, making it hideously unbalanced for multiclassing, are not good things, and should be revised again before it sees any official release.

Beyond that, I'm more interested in DM content. I know we will get more player stuff, but there is nothing specific I really want (other than psionics, which is not gonna happen here).

[Tetrasodium]

inb4 "Eberron gnolls are now also mindless monsters, because we have to twist each setting to fit with core fluff". Example: "Lizardfolk were dragonborn all along" "Baator is a thing"

It seems they are calling it the effing "shared lore" (https://twitter.com/mikemearls/status/883891093829332992) & the core books are all FR all the time because settings like eberron go against that particular midden heap of detailed rotting flesh making them " hard to fit in"



Remember the books specifically say that the setting lore they present is one setting, and the one you actually use at your table is another, which can be based as little or as much on published material. And that would be true even if the books didn't say it. In the FR games I run there's no such thing as a spellplague or a sundering, no Time of Troubles and the gods are very distant and largely non-interventionist. That's just the way I like it. Gnolls are the ravenous monsters described in the MM, but only because I like that idea too.

Edit: oh and Drizzt and Elminster are dead, they're the legendary heroes of bygone eras. They're cool and all but I don't want them around to steal the PCs' thunder.

All setting lore is a springboard as far as I'm concerned.

"one setting" yes, but going by 5e material alone, that "one setting" is all fr all the time & nothing but FR. even when you start adding in stuff like official podcasts/tweets/replies it remains the same (https://twitter.com/ChrisPerkinsDnD/status/865989415016865792)

[JumboWheat01]

I wish to see EVERYTHING. Because it's in the title, ya know?

Though on a serious note, I'd like to see the finalized revised Ranger the most, and I'm not really much of a Ranger player. Of course, I'd say yes to any other extra player options too.

And finally, I'd like to know what's with the goldfish.

[Chaosvii7]

A good version of Favored Soul (like the original, which was the best)
College of Whispers
The Lore Wizard

Not the Theurgist

[ZorroGames]

Books, shmooks... could not care less about these. Plenty of inspiring fantasy without characters like Dizzyit UberElf.

Fix Ranger class. Seriously when fighters make better archers... And that is from an Aragorn/LOTR fan, though I still like (book, not film,) Gimli best.

Fix the other two "pillars" besides combat. That could be two books by itself.

While other races do nada for me - if Volo's, et. al., are going to be used how about some feats for them. Useful in character/class ones.

And despite no interest in Gnolls, some practical PC roles. If Drow can be good guys...

Oh, while I am casting "Wish" - a setting in either Ancient Egypt or India before the appearance of Islam. Not expecting that at all...

[Sariel Vailo]

We need a mockery npc for a foolish leader named drumpf we must stat out the drumpf

[JackPhoenix]

While other races do nada for me - if Volo's, et. al., are going to be used how about some feats for them. Useful in character/class ones.

I doubt we'll see that, thanks to AL: with its PHB + 1 limit, it would be a waste of space to include stuff for non-core races.


Oh, while I am casting "Wish" - a setting in either Ancient Egypt or India before the appearance of Islam. Not expecting that at all...

Plane Shift: Kaladesh & Almondcat?

[Tectorman]

The final Mystic and Artificer (though I know that's still supposed to be a ways off), and at least the Oath of Treachery for the Paladin.

Or really, at least one way to play a Paladin at 3rd level or above without having to worry about "Am I going to get forced into multiclassing out, or having to switch oaths?". I hate having to avoid the Paladin class like the plague just because I don't want to put up with that baggage.

And it doesn't necessarily have to be the Oath of Treachery, either. Just something with no tenets of any kind. No stick.

[Nifft]

Or really, at least one way to play a Paladin at 3rd level or above without having to worry about "Am I going to get forced into multiclassing out, or having to switch oaths?". I hate having to avoid the Paladin class like the plague just because I don't want to put up with that baggage.

You don't find good value in the higher-level Paladin features?

I mean, multi-classing is also good, but a full-class Paladin seemed quite playable to me.

[DracoKnight]

You don't find good value in the higher-level Paladin features?

I mean, multi-classing is also good, but a full-class Paladin seemed quite playable to me.

Pretty sure that they're saying they don't like how much of the RP can be policed by the DM. Since, for instance, the DM can say: "Your Oath of Vengeance Paladin isn't avenging anything. If anything, he's more...Devoted to his cause. Change Oaths."

[Millstone85]

And it doesn't necessarily have to be the Oath of Treachery, either. Just something with no tenets of any kind. No stick.So, we currently have something like this:




Lawful
Neutral
Chaotic


Good
Devotion
Ancients



Neutral
Crown
Vengeance



Evil
Conquest
Oathbreaker
Treachery



Maybe what you want can fill one of the remaining gaps? An oath of freedom, perhaps.

[Tectorman]

You don't find good value in the higher-level Paladin features?

I mean, multi-classing is also good, but a full-class Paladin seemed quite playable to me.

I agree entirely. That's the point. I want to be able to play a higher level Paladin WITHOUT having to worry about whether I might get hit by an enforced class or oath change over an RP difference of opinion.


So, we currently have something like this:




Lawful
Neutral
Chaotic


Good
Devotion
Ancients



Neutral
Crown
Vengeance



Evil
Conquest
Oathbreaker
Treachery



Maybe what you want can fill one of the remaining gaps? An oath of freedom, perhaps.

No, I'm looking for at least one version of the Paladin to have no tenets at all, the way the Oath of Treachery did when it first came out.

For example, you're seeing Treachery as the slot-filler for CE. I, on the other hand, see Treachery as LG, NG, CG, LN, TN, CN, LE, NE, and CE, since there's literally nothing you have to do to avoid a forced multiclass or oath change. You're not even required to be evil or treacherous. You actually can play a Treachery Paladin as an honest, upstanding, and decent guy. If you wanted, you could literally take an Oath of Treachery Paladin and turn right around and play him as a Devotion Paladin. Or an Ancients Paladin. Or if you wanted, a Paladin guided by a hybrid oath combining one or more elements from two others. And all of it to the extent you (no one else, just you) believe qualifies as sufficient to adhere to whatever tenets you picked, if you even picked any.

That's the whole point. To be able to play at least one kind of 3rd level+ Paladin the way you think he should be played because you think he should be played that way, rather than because that's what you have to do to avoid losing the Paladin powers.

[kingheff1]

On top of the finalized UA class options, that I assume are a given, I'd like to see some good guides for player based world building.
Guides and advice for creating player themed guilds and other organisations. Some good stuff for building and maintaining keeps as a way to structure and maintain higher level campaign play which often peters out.
Anything that encourages players and DM's to collaborate together for the good of the game.

[Nifft]

I agree entirely. That's the point. I want to be able to play a higher level Paladin WITHOUT having to worry about whether I might get hit by an enforced class or oath change over an RP difference of opinion.

Oh.

Uh.

Yuck.

I can't imagine doing that to a player.

[ZorroGames]

I doubt we'll see that, thanks to AL: with its PHB + 1 limit, it would be a waste of space to include stuff for non-core races.



Plane Shift: Kaladesh & Almondcat?

Agree with first part.

Will check out the above. I assume those were post AD&D/1st and pre-5th Edition? Those would be my "MIA" parenting years.

[ZorroGames]

Yeah "losing powers" was why a female player in AD&D/1st (along with her obsession for horses) always went Cavalier instead of Paladin.

DM zapping Paladins was a sword of Damocles back in the day.

[Ravinsild]

I never got the impression the Conequest Oath was good or evil, more just like you fight a lot and you can fight for justice and freedom and help people, but also strike fear into your enemies so they respect you or you can be a fighter for evil and power and subjugation. I thought it was more just focused on War and the war you fight and the reasons you fight it make you good or evil. That was my interpretation of it.

[DracoKnight]

Will check out the above. I assume those were post AD&D/1st and pre-5th Edition? Those would be my "MIA" parenting years.

They're free PDFs written by WotC and they're how to play various Magic the Gathering settings in D&D 5e :smallsmile:

[Kane0]

I never got the impression the Conequest Oath was good or evil, more just like you fight a lot and you can fight for justice and freedom and help people, but also strike fear into your enemies so they respect you or you can be a fighter for evil and power and subjugation. I thought it was more just focused on War and the war you fight and the reasons you fight it make you good or evil. That was my interpretation of it.

It works amazingly with Hobgoblins.

[HidesHisEyes]

It seems they are calling it the effing "shared lore" (https://twitter.com/mikemearls/status/883891093829332992) & the core books are all FR all the time because settings like eberron go against that particular midden heap of detailed rotting flesh making them " hard to fit in"




"one setting" yes, but going by 5e material alone, that "one setting" is all fr all the time & nothing but FR. even when you start adding in stuff like official podcasts/tweets/replies it remains the same (https://twitter.com/ChrisPerkinsDnD/status/865989415016865792)

To be fair I haven't tried to run a game in a setting that specifically wasn't FR, but I just don't see it. What is stopping you from home brewing a gnoll playable race for a game in which you state gnolls are not the ravenous beasts described in the MM? Should the core rules cater for every possible conception of every setting element they refer to?

For me as someone who doesn't worry about setting too much and doesn't have a specific setting I want to play in, I just appreciate having a setting that is really fleshed out and has a lot of content to support it. I'm absolutely in favour of them providing content for other settings for those who are after something different, but I don't think they've gone too far with focusing on FR as the "default" setting, personally.

[Ravinsild]

It works amazingly with Hobgoblins.

I keep wanting to play a Hobgoblin but I can never get the concept down of what class or anything. Maybe if they came out with a Samurai class? Have they done a UA on that or anything?

[ZorroGames]

They're free PDFs written by WotC and they're how to play various Magic the Gathering settings in D&D 5e :smallsmile:

Okay, where would find these?

[wilhelmdubdub]

besides the above:

A map of Waterdeep would be good if it's the last FR content book you could do so much to tie in the other books, including SKT and TFTYP

[DracoKnight]

Okay, where would find these?

I'm on mobile, so I can't link to it, but they're on the dnd.wizards site :smallsmile:

I will say this: of all the Plane Shift articles Amonkhet is really the only one worth reading.

[Kane0]

I keep wanting to play a Hobgoblin but I can never get the concept down of what class or anything. Maybe if they came out with a Samurai class? Have they done a UA on that or anything?

I'd actually recommend a Hobgoblin Conquest Paladin as it fits together very nicely, but there is a UA Samurai Fighter (https://media.wizards.com/2016/dnd/downloads/2016_Fighter_UA_1205_1.pdf).

[Tetrasodium]

To be fair I haven't tried to run a game in a setting that specifically wasn't FR, but I just don't see it. What is stopping you from home brewing a gnoll playable race for a game in which you state gnolls are not the ravenous beasts described in the MM? Should the core rules cater for every possible conception of every setting element they refer to?

For me as someone who doesn't worry about setting too much and doesn't have a specific setting I want to play in, I just appreciate having a setting that is really fleshed out and has a lot of content to support it. I'm absolutely in favour of them providing content for other settings for those who are after something different, but I don't think they've gone too far with focusing on FR as the "default" setting, personally.

The gnoll was just an example of something wildly different. I managed it trivially by saying that tabaxi does not exist & znir pact gnolls use tabaxi stats for now (likewise with shifters because the UA shifter is so terribad). But things are not so easy with everything. Take goblins (http://keith-baker.com/dragonmarks-goblins/), orcs (http://keith-baker.com/dragonmarks-orcs-and-the-ghaashkala/), gnomes (http://eberron.wikia.com/wiki/Gnome), drow (http://eberron.wikia.com/wiki/Drow), evil outsiders/aberrations (http://eberron.wikia.com/wiki/Daelkyr) (beholders/mindflayers/etc), or the fey (http://keith-baker.com/dragonmarks-thelanis-and-the-fey/).... and put a cherry on top with a freaking full blooded ogre (https://twitter.com/HellcowKeith/status/857239715455447040) that monsters would group with the same disdainful sneer as humans.

As if that's not bad enough, compare the page about humans across different parts of faerun or quarter page of drizzit in the human/elf sections of the PHB to one of the most extreme examples of WotC's refusal to even consider acknowledging eberron & look at the full entry on Coutals in the MM (pg43). Bear in mind that you won't see the problem if you aren't familiar with eberron's very simple creation myth (http://eberronunlimited.wikidot.com/age-of-dragons). Still not seeing the problem? Siberys created the Couarl when she was killed by her brother Khyber & her blood began to fall in different places but does not merit a namedrop over effing "Nameless god" in the MM. The top left of PoTA 249 at least admits that FR's planar cosmology doesn't fit eberron very well (to be kind), but unfortunately that section is probably almost as long if not longer than everything ever published about some of those planes.

It's not that simple because even when running eberron in a version where it was released (3.5/4e) I have to homebrew & massively adjust everything on top of the fact that despite many creatures being added through their presence in eberron over those versions exactly zero of them have ever been imported into a monster manual meaning when running those versions I'd need dmg/maybe phb/mm -and-a slew of books that I only need to carry because they each have a few pages of monsters in them. The reason that I mentioned gnolls specifically is because there was an official tweet effectively saying that FR style gnolls apply to all settings all the time.
They came out back around the time of the dndnext->5e launch to say that there would be eberron stuff released, but 3-5 years later the only evidence is UAs for terribad warforged/shifters/changelings, a wildly inappropriate artificer that could only fit lantan (FR), a mystic class that might as well be v0.01 given how broken it is, and some dragonmarks that are practically unchanged from 3.5s aside from being compiled into a single feat.

[Ravinsild]

FR gnolls are not representative of gnolls in every setting. for example, eberron has the znir pact gnolls (http://www.wizards.com/files/367_Playing_Gnolls.pdf) which are wildly dfifferent and pretty much have no FR equivalent to compare them against

2 things. 1) Is Keith Baker the inventor of Eberron? 2) I used that PDF to make my own Gnoll PC because they are my favorite race ever, and few games support them as PC races, and so is that an Eberron style document?

If so, I think Eberron may overtake Dark Sun as my favorite campaign setting and I'd strongly love to see some official eberron content. Also I dislike Homebrew because it can often be imbalanced and doesn't fit very well into official or even unofficial character creation apps. Despite all that I used the following PDF to try and convert the 4e Gnolls into 5e to...probably no success, but hey I tried.

The fact that Eberron even entertains the idea of goblin or Gnoll heroes is what's selling it for me. I love it. The more I read of this guys articles the more I want to play in Eberron.

[Nifft]

The fact that Eberron even entertains the idea of goblin or Gnoll heroes is what's selling it for me. I love it. The more I read of this guys articles the more I want to play in Eberron.

Goblins & Orcs & so forth were the major heroes of the war against Xoriat (the Plane of Madness where all the awful Aberrations came from).

They sacrificed greatly but won the war -- and then Humanity appeared & colonized their lands while they were weakened. It's a fairly tragic story.

Humanoids are pretty sympathetic in Eberron, it's one of the first settings where I don't feel any urge to "exterminate the brutes" (e.g. Heart of Darkness).


That said, I have no hope of seeing Eberron in XGtE, so yeah... maybe this is a topic for another thread.

[SaurOps]

I'd actually recommend a Hobgoblin Conquest Paladin as it fits together very nicely, but there is a UA Samurai Fighter (https://media.wizards.com/2016/dnd/downloads/2016_Fighter_UA_1205_1.pdf).

Though surely the Battle Master was already a serviceable samurai kind of archetype, and depending on what you're looking for, any number of paladin oaths could also fit the bill.

[Tetrasodium]

2 things. 1) Is Keith Baker the inventor of Eberron? 2) I used that PDF to make my own Gnoll PC because they are my favorite race ever, and few games support them as PC races, and so is that an Eberron style document?

If so, I think Eberron may overtake Dark Sun as my favorite campaign setting and I'd strongly love to see some official eberron content. Also I dislike Homebrew because it can often be imbalanced and doesn't fit very well into official or even unofficial character creation apps. Despite all that I used the following PDF to try and convert the 4e Gnolls into 5e to...probably no success, but hey I tried.

The fact that Eberron even entertains the idea of goblin or Gnoll heroes is what's selling it for me. I love it. The more I read of this guys articles the more I want to play in Eberron.

1: Yes he is. http://keith-baker.com/ http://manifest.zone have some great stuff from him, but he's beentalking about it in various places for years now so there is lots more if you start looking around.
that document on gnolls is technically a FR document on gnolls where he was able to fit in a bit about gnolls in other settings. this post of his talks about "monsters". Aside from the daelkyr, there are very few creatures with intelligence capabilities similar to humans that afall into the FR style "quick it's not human, kill it!" box. I highly recommend queen of stone (https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/3210859-the-queen-of-stone) since it's pretty much set against/thrust into the backdrop of a political power game between chessmasters (tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/TheChessmaster) & gives some great insight into thecivilization of the monstrous races. good and evil in eberron are much more rational (http://keith-baker.com/dragonmarks-44-good-and-evil/) making it a place where a NG queen can scheme with catspaws & such hoping to restart the war that lasted a hundred years while a LE vampire king can impose martial law, assassinate, etc in the name of keeping the peace & bettering his people.

but in terms of a d&d game it also means that I can as a gm say "self. I want to pit my newbies against trolls in a bit & would like them to spend a lot of time in darguun, but they are in breland acting as mercenaries for house denieth to protect a house orien caravan delivering Byeshk from graywall to zilargo so.... ah-ha!" then proceed to:

have "someone" evil from droaam decide she wants to manipulate events for a favorable turn in prophecy
a changeling is sent out with some gnoll guards to meet up with a bunch of goblins
the changeling uses a crew of warforged in a bag of holding to decimate the goblins with a siege staff per orders
one of the goblins survives & runs into some nearby dhakaani ruins
changeling runs off & send tje gnolls to clean up rhe loose end
not certain the gnolls will be able to deal with it, the changeling spots a house orien caravan & runs up looking like a cyran refugee (aka a mourner) with a wild yet plausible tale about a group of goblins who attacked her group of refugees trying to get to a town where they were assured work
not too keen on the idea of being ambushed, the caravan master sends the group off to go investigate
Given that the changeling appeared as a human when she massacred his group/party/clanmates/etc, the group charging into a room where they put themselves between three gnolls desperately trying to fight off a goblin kicking their ass (given the gnolls were using cr 1/2 guard stats & the goblin was like a cr6 bandit leader or something, this was not hard) the goblin ignored attempts to find out what was going on & threw a knife while retreating further into the ruins
long story short, all of the dead gnolls had acid vials on them, because "someone" had them take them when she sent them with the changeling. the goblin planted some seeds of doubt before expiring & the massacred goblins does not line up with the woman's story about her people
Group gets back to the caravan, woman is nowhere to be found because she's impersonating tthe person who's body is in her bag of holding
party moves on. travel banners go missing one night. dundundun


a good person might have just made plea or offer to hire the group, but an evil one who needs to ensure that events happen in a controlled manner might do... that.

[Rogerdodger557]

I'm on mobile, so I can't link to it, but they're on the dnd.wizards site :smallsmile:

I will say this: of all the Plane Shift articles Amonkhet is really the only one worth reading.

I think you misspelled Almondcat.

[Rogerdodger557]

Grave Domain Clerics, and the spells from the Starter spells UA

[Grod_The_Giant]

I mean, we roughly know. We're getting

25ish new subclasses, including the Cavalier Fighter (cool, but needed work), Dream Druid (nice), and Horizon Walker Ranger (what no why, so very mess)
New spells
Racial feats
"New ways to use traps, magic items, downtime activities and more"-- which sounds like the much-reviled Downtime article, the traps one, and I'm guessing a bunch of new magic items.


I'm guessing the subclasses will include everything from the "revised classes" and "revised subclasses" articles, plus a few more. The spells will probably have new stuff; they've been pretty generous with those in published material so far. The racial feats will almost certainly stick to PHB races-- I very much doubt they'll be nice enough to include expansions for material already in expansions, like 3.5 eventually did. Especially not with the "PHB+1 book" limit on AL play. The GM stuff sounds like a rehashing of the much-reviled Downtime article, the traps one, and I'm guessing a list of new magic items. Maybe some alternate random item tables, if we're lucky.

[Ravinsild]

I mean, we roughly know. We're getting

25ish new subclasses, including the Cavalier Fighter (cool, but needed work), Dream Druid (nice), and Horizon Walker Ranger (what no why, so very mess)
New spells
Racial feats
"New ways to use traps, magic items, downtime activities and more"-- which sounds like the much-reviled Downtime article, the traps one, and I'm guessing a bunch of new magic items.


I'm guessing the subclasses will include everything from the "revised classes" and "revised subclasses" articles, plus a few more. The spells will probably have new stuff; they've been pretty generous with those in published material so far. The racial feats will almost certainly stick to PHB races-- I very much doubt they'll be nice enough to include expansions for material already in expansions, like 3.5 eventually did. Especially not with the "PHB+1 book" limit on AL play. The GM stuff sounds like a rehashing of the much-reviled Downtime article, the traps one, and I'm guessing a list of new magic items. Maybe some alternate random item tables, if we're lucky.

If that's the case I'm praying for all the Paladin Oaths/Sorcerer Subclasses/Revised Ranger and all the subclasses/Warlock Hexblade at least that have been featured in UA. Conquest/Treachery/Redemption etc, Phoenix Sorc/Stone Sorc/Sea Sorc and I liked the Deep Stalker Hunter in addition to Revised Beast Conclave a lot.

Also would love to see Samurai for Fighter and basically all of the UA Barbarian subclasses. The Elemental barbarian I really liked.