Do we still expect the Revised Ranger and Artificer this year?

[Tales and Chronicles]

Cubicle 7 did a (free?) document for AiME with Alternate Class Features for some of the classes that had features that were not broken, but were not really appreciated at some table or felt useless in some play style. The Dm is the one who choose if the features is replaced in the class chassis or not; its not a player choice per say. A small pdf from WotC would do the trick.

 

[Kobold Avenger]

When there's a class in the PHB with only 2 subclasses and one of them seems weak, it makes the class as a whole seem weak.

Especially in the case of the Ranger with the Beastmaster which is a very iconic part of the Ranger's image. The Sorcerer might have a similar issue with the Wild Mage. I don't think the Monk overall had this as there were 3 subclasses, so the one "weak" didn't bring the class down.

 

[doctorbadwolf]

When there's a class in the PHB with only 2 subclasses and one of them seems weak, it makes the class as a whole seem weak.

Especially in the case of the Ranger with the Beastmaster which is a very iconic part of the Ranger's image. The Sorcerer might have a similar issue with the Wild Mage. I don't think the Monk overall had this as there were 3 subclasses, so the one "weak" didn't bring the class down.

It also can take longer to realize how weak the 4Elements monk is, compared to the Beast Master.

 

[AmerginLiath]

I also wonder if, like with Frenzy-Zealot Barbarian and Elements-Sun Soul Monk, they may end up coming out with an additional pet ranger subclass down the line to offer some of the fixes folks are talking about with Beastmaster, without scrapping a class that others are likely using and enjoying.

 

[cbwjm]

I'm not really expecting either this year. The ranger I'm not expecting at all.

 

[Li Shenron]

I've previously heard in various spots, such as the thread below, that we can expect the artificer and revised Ranger sometime in 2018. Do we still expect that to be true? Or were there official words to the contrary somewhere?

I am still expecting what they have mentioned latest i.e. Alternate Class Features (for all classes, rather than a complete Revised Ranger class) and an Artificer base class.

But of course they've changed their plans before, and can do so again. It's very possible that the gamer base still can't wrap their head around not getting a whole class revision, which in my personal opinion is both unnecessary and potentially damaging, and are still asking for that, which would probably push WotC towards burying the ACF idea. OTOH, if we do get ACFs at some point, let's prepare to be underwhelmed: they'll probably publish one ACF per class, and maybe 2 for a couple of classes, but they won't certainly provide an ACF for even half of the existing class features. Not so much because it's hard to design them, but because changing one per class requires a lot less testing than changing two and having to test what happens when a PC adopts the first only, the second only, or both.

As for the Artificer class, this obviously requires a much bigger design effort. I think the demand for the Mystic/Psion is much bigger, so it's possible they'll drop the Artificer to focus on the other class. But then also the demand for something Eberron is pretty high, so who knows... I still think they want to design both however.

About my personal preferences, I'd have more use for the ACFs than two completely new classes, and why I really liked psionics the first time in my life when they released the latest Mystic draft in UA, I do not expect to be interested in the Artificer unless they make it a non-spellcaster.

 

[Parmandur]

I am still expecting what they have mentioned latest i.e. Alternate Class Features (for all classes, rather than a complete Revised Ranger class) and an Artificer base class.

But of course they've changed their plans before, and can do so again. It's very possible that the gamer base still can't wrap their head around not getting a whole class revision, which in my personal opinion is both unnecessary and potentially damaging, and are still asking for that, which would probably push WotC towards burying the ACF idea. OTOH, if we do get ACFs at some point, let's prepare to be underwhelmed: they'll probably publish one ACF per class, and maybe 2 for a couple of classes, but they won't certainly provide an ACF for even half of the existing class features. Not so much because it's hard to design them, but because changing one per class requires a lot less testing than changing two and having to test what happens when a PC adopts the first only, the second only, or both.

As for the Artificer class, this obviously requires a much bigger design effort. I think the demand for the Mystic/Psion is much bigger, so it's possible they'll drop the Artificer to focus on the other class. But then also the demand for something Eberron is pretty high, so who knows... I still think they want to design both however.

About my personal preferences, I'd have more use for the ACFs than two completely new classes, and why I really liked psionics the first time in my life when they released the latest Mystic draft in UA, I do not expect to be interested in the Artificer unless they make it a non-spellcaster.

They have said the Mystic has taken a back-burner while they focus on the Artificer, though that probably remains fluid. Based on Mearls Twitch show, the Mystic seems to be back to the drawing board. When he told somebody to wait for new Artificer rules, somebody else asked about nee Mystic rules and Mearls advised that they don't wait for new rules anytime too soon.

 

[Li Shenron]

They have said the Mystic has taken a back-burner while they focus on the Artificer, though that probably remains fluid. Based on Mearls Twitch show, the Mystic seems to be back to the drawing board. When he told somebody to wait for new Artificer rules, somebody else asked about nee Mystic rules and Mearls advised that they don't wait for new rules anytime too soon.

I missed that announcement. It sounds a bit odd to me considering they've done 2 rounds of design for the Mystic along similar lines, and I thought I heard more raves each time.

On the contrary, the first Artificer as a Wizard's subclass was largely botched, in fact the second try was completely different as a standalone class, and with a lot less stuff than the Mystic.

Well I don't know... it felt to me like the Mystic was going somewhere and the Artificer was still up in the air, but what do I know?

 

[jgsugden]

I would not say there were raves for the Mystic, but there was interest. I'm betting the backburner, if true, is due to the product it would be in getting pushed back.

 

[Parmandur]

I missed that announcement. It sounds a bit odd to me considering they've done 2 rounds of design for the Mystic along similar lines, and I thought I heard more raves each time.

On the contrary, the first Artificer as a Wizard's subclass was largely botched, in fact the second try was completely different as a standalone class, and with a lot less stuff than the Mystic.

Well I don't know... it felt to me like the Mystic was going somewhere and the Artificer was still up in the air, but what do I know?

They have stated that the Mystic as it stood was overpowered ("bonkers broken" is what I believe Crawford called the latest release), and fills too many roles. That's why Mearls is playing with pshycic Subclasses of other Classes, to remove conceptual crowding for the Mystic on the next redesign. The Artificer, however, seems to be closer to primetime.