D&D 5E Could the Revised/Variant Ranger be released by the end of the year?

Parmandur · Dec 8, 2017

MechaTarrasque said:
Since the fathomer in PotA had eldritch blast (makes me think that was an elemental-patroned warlock) and the princess in ToA was explicitly an elemental-patroned warlock, I am surprised they haven't made one for PC's yet.

Wouldn't be surprised to see those in the future, either.

Parmandur · Dec 8, 2017

Azzy said:
Neat, but I would like it if they'd just revisit the Sha'ir as a subclass.

Maybe that's the idea. They could do Sha'ir Wizards, Genie descended Sorcerers and Genie pact Warlocks: kind of surprised that Fey, Infernal or Far Realms Sorcerers aren't a thing yet, let alone Draconic Pacts for Warlocks.

CapnZapp · Dec 8, 2017

Giving NPCs cantrips is a waste of time.

When your expected lifetime is 3 or 4 combat rounds you'd better use up your biggest spells right away.

Faffing about with cantrips is something player characters do when they hold back their power.

Creating a NPC only to not use its powers doesn't make much sense.

Sent from my C6603 using EN World mobile app

doctorbadwolf · Dec 8, 2017

Mistwell said:
Like the spoon, there is no warlord.

Srsly. They're not making a warlord. You can buy one of the dozen or so third party versions of that class if you need it in your game.

Eh, some of us don’t beleive in ever accepting a status quo that we think isn’t the right direction, even with things so small as a hobby game.

Sure, we can use this party options with fairly little play testing, that usually either over complicate things, don’t fit the design style of 5e, or just don’t actually do what we want from a leader archetype, and we will in the meantime, but that doesn’t mean we need to stop bringing it up when there is an opportunity.

Mistwell · Dec 8, 2017

doctorbadwolf said:
Eh, some of us don’t beleive in ever accepting a status quo that we think isn’t the right direction, even with things so small as a hobby game.

I am not telling you to accept the status quo. I am telling you to find the right Warlord for you and add it to your game. While admitting there is zero chance WOTC will ever publish an "official" Warlord class. Accepting that and doing something about it for your own game is "doing something" about it. And if you are concerned about the Wardlord third party offerings, you can do something about that and playtest them all, find the best one in the bunch for you and your table, and improve them if they need improving. That might take some effort on your part, but at least it's effort that is likely to benefit your table - unlike complaining on a message board about it where honesty no WOTC employee is even likely to see it, much less make a change to the game because of it.

doctorbadwolf · Dec 8, 2017

Mistwell said:
I am not telling you to accept the status quo. I am telling you to find the right Warlord for you and add it to your game. While admitting there is zero chance WOTC will ever publish an "official" Warlord class. Accepting that and doing something about it for your own game is "doing something" about it. And if you are concerned about the Wardlord third party offerings, you can do something about that and playtest them all, find the best one in the bunch for you and your table, and improve them if they need improving. That might take some effort on your part, but at least it's effort that is likely to benefit your table - unlike complaining on a message board about it where honesty no WOTC employee is even likely to see it, much less make a change to the game because of it.

Its funny that you think there is a dichotomy there. There isn’t. As I already said, I and my group are already, in the meantime, using and testing third party options and our own options. That soesnt interfere in any way with posting posting on a forum about what I want to see.

If you don’t like what I have to say on the future of 5e, scroll past my posts or add me to your ignore list.

Mistwell · Dec 8, 2017

doctorbadwolf said:
Its funny that you think there is a dichotomy there. There isn’t. As I already said, I and my group are already, in the meantime, using and testing third party options and our own options.

OK. Maybe I missed it, but I have not seen you post much about that. Which are working for you, and which are not? What are you finding out there? Any changes you've made to what you've tested?

doctorbadwolf · Dec 8, 2017

Mistwell said:
OK. Maybe I missed it, but I have not seen you post much about that. Which are working for you, and which are not? What are you finding out there? Any changes you've made to what you've tested?

I stated as much in the post you replied to first. I also said why those options don’t work all that well. The enwirld Noble is ok, for what it is, probably the top of the 3rd party pile so far, but it still doesn’t achieve what the Star Wars Saga Noble did, or what the 4e warlord did.

When we have a home brew that we like for a Captain class, I’ll post it on dmsguild and make a thread here.

CapnZapp · Dec 8, 2017

Mistwell said:
I am not telling you to accept the status quo. I am telling you to find the right Warlord for you and add it to your game. While admitting there is zero chance WOTC will ever publish an "official" Warlord class. Accepting that and doing something about it for your own game is "doing something" about it. And if you are concerned about the Wardlord third party offerings, you can do something about that and playtest them all, find the best one in the bunch for you and your table, and improve them if they need improving. That might take some effort on your part, but at least it's effort that is likely to benefit your table - unlike complaining on a message board about it where honesty no WOTC employee is even likely to see it, much less make a change to the game because of it.

There is not a zero chance of an official Warlord.

What you meant to say is that YOU want there to be a zero chance of an official Warlord. You simply got fact and want mixed up there bud.

Sent from my C6603 using EN World mobile app

lkj · Dec 8, 2017

This is a bit of an aside, but I remembered another thing Crawford said in that interview that might be of interest. He said that one clue that a given UA article is on a topic that they are seriously considering for a product (in other words, not just a random experiment like Mike's alternative initiative rule or a very early try at something) is when his name is associated with the article. In other words, once he gets involved the idea is far enough along that they are making a serious run at it.

AD