Okay, so 5 years too late, but I'm thinking about the SCAG today.
Does anybody else feel like the SCAG was carved out of the PHB? I do. I can't tell you exactly why, but there are a couple easy reasons (such as deadlines and profit).
So, why would it be from the PHB? Because there are a few parts of the PHB that reference parts of this book a bit oddly. The Dwarves and the Gnomes each have a ting tag talking about their third subrace. A book doesn't really need to advertise, "Hey, there's stuff that we aren't giving you!" Then there are reprints and additions to the script of different languages, which just feels a bit odd, but so does that section of the PHB. The formattinf of the Gray Dwarves and Deep Gnomes is completely different from the Ghostwise Halflings.
Lastly, the only spells included in the book are related to the Bladesinger, which hints at spells not being something considered when making it its own book.
I actually feel that they pushed the number of pages needed for each race, and some classes pushed the book's count too high, alonside the Adventurers League content. Maybe that stuff wasn't up to snuff by their printing deadline, or like I was saying, Wizards may know that they want to make $10 per book minimum, with a wholesale cost of about $25, meaning that a book that is 30% longer might raise cost from $15 to $19, which would cut the intended profit... so why not make a second book?
The Dwarves and the Gnomes each have a ting tag talking about their third subrace. A book doesn't really need to advertise, "Hey, there's stuff that we aren't giving you!"
To be fair, the Monster Manual showcased the Duergar and Deep Gnomes long before SCAG. And the other dwarf/gnome subraces, like the crazy underdark wandering psycho killer one that I don't remember the name of... well, that's been around in lore for a long while. So, addressing them in the SCAG seems legit to me.
I have no problem with the language script, its something that pretty much happens all the time in older books. The writers moved away from it in 5e, eventually, but its not like previous books haven't done language bits before. Same with other race stuff. Its just a thing while the writers were finding their feet.
Bladesinger and the dwarf berserker were included, I suspect, mainly because they're classics from the Drizz't novels, and FR book just had to cover them.
They have gotten better at setting books over time? lol
What do you mean by that? The M:tG setting books, Explorer's Guide to Wildemount, and Eberron are pretty well written, especially when you compare them to SCAG.
They have gotten better at setting books over time? lol
What do you mean by that? The M:tG setting books, Explorer's Guide to Wildemount, and Eberron are pretty well written, especially when you compare them to SCAG.
TBF Eberron was mostly written by Keith Baker (he wrote Wayfinders Guide to Eberron which it is heavily based on) and Wlildemount was written by Mercer.
Thte M:tG Books were all in house though and you are right they are very good IMO.
The adventure books leave something to be desired a lot of the time....but the in-house setting books have been decent.
They have gotten better at setting books over time? lol
What do you mean by that? The M:tG setting books, Explorer's Guide to Wildemount, and Eberron are pretty well written, especially when you compare them to SCAG.
The M:tG settings aside, Wildmount was mostly Matt Mercer and Eberron was mostly Keith Baker.
I'd say it felt less like content that was cut from the PHB and more like content that was hastily created by a team with little familiarity with the source material because they had to meet a deadline.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Find your own truth, choose your enemies carefully, and never deal with a dragon.
"Canon" is what's factual to D&D lore. "Cannon" is what you're going to be shot with if you keep getting the word wrong.
They have gotten better at setting books over time? lol
What do you mean by that? The M:tG setting books, Explorer's Guide to Wildemount, and Eberron are pretty well written, especially when you compare them to SCAG.
TBF Eberron was mostly written by Keith Baker (he wrote Wayfinders Guide to Eberron which it is heavily based on) and Wlildemount was written by Mercer.
Thte M:tG Books were all in house though and you are right they are very good IMO.
The adventure books leave something to be desired a lot of the time....but the in-house setting books have been decent.
That's funny. All three of those books I've passed on, no thanks to MTG.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
Okay, so 5 years too late, but I'm thinking about the SCAG today.
Does anybody else feel like the SCAG was carved out of the PHB? I do. I can't tell you exactly why, but there are a couple easy reasons (such as deadlines and profit).
So, why would it be from the PHB? Because there are a few parts of the PHB that reference parts of this book a bit oddly. The Dwarves and the Gnomes each have a ting tag talking about their third subrace. A book doesn't really need to advertise, "Hey, there's stuff that we aren't giving you!" Then there are reprints and additions to the script of different languages, which just feels a bit odd, but so does that section of the PHB. The formattinf of the Gray Dwarves and Deep Gnomes is completely different from the Ghostwise Halflings.
Lastly, the only spells included in the book are related to the Bladesinger, which hints at spells not being something considered when making it its own book.
I actually feel that they pushed the number of pages needed for each race, and some classes pushed the book's count too high, alonside the Adventurers League content. Maybe that stuff wasn't up to snuff by their printing deadline, or like I was saying, Wizards may know that they want to make $10 per book minimum, with a wholesale cost of about $25, meaning that a book that is 30% longer might raise cost from $15 to $19, which would cut the intended profit... so why not make a second book?
I believe that the SCAG was so weird because Wizards had no clue how to make setting books at that point. They got much better at it over time.
To be fair, the Monster Manual showcased the Duergar and Deep Gnomes long before SCAG. And the other dwarf/gnome subraces, like the crazy underdark wandering psycho killer one that I don't remember the name of... well, that's been around in lore for a long while. So, addressing them in the SCAG seems legit to me.
I have no problem with the language script, its something that pretty much happens all the time in older books. The writers moved away from it in 5e, eventually, but its not like previous books haven't done language bits before. Same with other race stuff. Its just a thing while the writers were finding their feet.
Bladesinger and the dwarf berserker were included, I suspect, mainly because they're classics from the Drizz't novels, and FR book just had to cover them.
What threw me is just how long it took for GGR to hit after SCAG, as you said, like they forgot that they were even an option.
They have gotten better at setting books over time? lol
What do you mean by that? The M:tG setting books, Explorer's Guide to Wildemount, and Eberron are pretty well written, especially when you compare them to SCAG.
TBF Eberron was mostly written by Keith Baker (he wrote Wayfinders Guide to Eberron which it is heavily based on) and Wlildemount was written by Mercer.
Thte M:tG Books were all in house though and you are right they are very good IMO.
The adventure books leave something to be desired a lot of the time....but the in-house setting books have been decent.
The M:tG settings aside, Wildmount was mostly Matt Mercer and Eberron was mostly Keith Baker.
Creating Epic Boons on DDB
DDB Buyers' Guide
Hardcovers, DDB & You
Content Troubleshooting
Paying people to do what they're good at is good business practice.
Yeah I would not be angry if they 3rd party sourced more books to be honest...their in house playtesting is just so-so IMO.
I'd say it felt less like content that was cut from the PHB and more like content that was hastily created by a team with little familiarity with the source material because they had to meet a deadline.
Find your own truth, choose your enemies carefully, and never deal with a dragon.
"Canon" is what's factual to D&D lore. "Cannon" is what you're going to be shot with if you keep getting the word wrong.
That's funny. All three of those books I've passed on, no thanks to MTG.