Not an unreasonable position, but also not a useful one in the absence of time travel.
There is always 5.5e and 6e.
Not an unreasonable position, but also not a useful one in the absence of time travel.
Sure, and with perfect hindsight they'll include everything that was popular during the course of 5e's publication. And will inevitably leave out other things that go on to be popular with players in 6e.There is always 5.5e and 6e.
Sure, and with perfect hindsight they'll include everything that was popular during the course of 5e's publication. And will inevitably leave out other things that go on to be popular with players in 6e.
If it is not in the PHB, it needs to appear in most material that will require it.Not things that happen to be popular, things that appear often via reprints or appear in 3 or more settings. If something is popular, but is only done once, it doesn't need to be in the PHB.
I don't get this. I don't know what is new and what is not, but non of the art is terrible. If you have a specific piece you think is terrible, please point it out and why. And the alt-cover is fantastic!
I don't see it. The quite like the gnome & homunculus on pg 57; now the battlesmith and artillerist (pg 60) are kinda skuds (fine from a distance, but not so great close up), but I like the steel defender and all of them are far from what I would call 'awful.' I just think your analysis or reaction is hyperbolic. The are work is not awful, IMO. Now a couple of comments about this:All the art for the artificer and its sub-classes (save the steel defender) struck me as particularly awful.
Compare to Ravnica anything or Xanathar's sub-class art and its night and day in terms of quality.
- One, two, or three pieces of bad art (which I personally don't agree with) does not make the entirety of the art in the book terrible as @Ruin Explorer seemed to think.
To clarify I said where I really care about the art is the MM. The fact the sub-standard art gets in there I personally find shocking. Regarding a whole book, I would say something like 15-25% of the art being bad as a negative effect of my impression of the quality of the book.How many would? Four? Five? It seems to me that no amount would for some people, especially re your comment that art only matters in the MM. Which is fine, but obviously an extreme position.
My apologies, it was probably someone else. There have been a couple of post with people saying it is either terrible or fantastic, which I think are both extreme. So I lumped you into one of those groups.Also, you're putting words in my mouth. I don't think that the art is "terrible" that's far too extreme. I think it's distinctly lower quality than I expected, especially for such a high profile product. It's not the end of the world.
I haven't run into any balance issues yet, but I haven't actually used anything from the book yet so I can't really comment on that. However, must things that people claim as unbalanced we just haven't experienced at our table.The balance issues are a much bigger problem as 5E has no mechanism to correct them.
I haven't run into any balance issues yet, but I haven't actually used anything from the book yet so I can't really comment on that. However, must things that people claim as unbalanced we just haven't experienced at our table.