Artificer UA to be released in February

DEFCON 1 said:

There's nothing wrong with [MENTION=12731]CapnZapp[/MENTION] or [MENTION=6781549]DQDesign[/MENTION] believing a snail's pace release schedule sucks for getting new "official" game mechanics (if that matters to you). But I also think we can't deny that their pace has not made their business suffer. And I'd be reticent to put forth the idea that D&D would be "stronger" than they are right now had they been putting out books of game mechanics at the rate they did for 3E and 4E.

Expectation for what's coming up has kept interest going for D&D even to us cynics on ENWorld. The fact that we have 100 post threads about trying to divine what two pages of a book might mean and represent is indicative of that. So while some folks want more faster (and there's nothing wrong with that), all of us can understand and accept why we don't get it.

Click to expand...

Gradine said:

Again, you can see that as either a feature or a bug; there are valid arguments for both, even if I don't necessarily agree personally with all of them. But these "the emperor has no clothes" allusions really need to stop.

Click to expand...

Gradine said:

But these "the emperor has no clothes" allusions really need to stop.

Click to expand...

DQDesign said:

why, because you don't like my thoughts?
I'm free to think, and above all, write here, anything I want within the forum rules.
and I think wotc has no clear publishing strategy nor decent approach to release schedule. and that hiding that behind 'four years of playtesting are needed for a basic class' is ridiculous and disrespectful of customers' intelligence.

Click to expand...

Gradine said:

None of this is the problem. The problem is accusing those who disagree with you of being clueless, passive corporate shills. That kind of is against the forum rules.

Click to expand...

Gradine said:

I can see both the frustration with the dearth of crunch as well as the appreciation. It's not about "being okay" with WotC only releasing new races and class archetypes at this point, and no official new full class after years. It's in seeing that as a feature and not as a bug.

As someone who introduced new players to 3.5 after the end of its run, I feel I can say with certainty that D&D does not need fifty classes, nor does it need dozens upon dozens (if not hundreds) of races, nor does it need hundreds upon hundreds (if not thousands) of feats or spells. That the closest thing WotC has to a true competitor (and I'd argue it was one in the lead up to 5e) has already sort of cornered the market on that style of game system, it actually makes a certain kind of sense to go in a different direction. I, for one, appreciate that the game is not considerably more complex now than it was five years ago. It's great not only for new players but especially for new DMs; I can imagine someone wanting to try out DMing (especially if there is no one in the group with much experience with the system) trying to pick up a game like 3.5 or PF or even 4e and suffering from a kind of archive panic. 5e is not going to instill the same sense of dread, and it's not likely that it ever will.

Again, you can see that as either a feature or a bug; there are valid arguments for both, even if I don't necessarily agree personally with all of them. But these "the emperor has no clothes" allusions really need to stop.

Click to expand...

chunkosauruswrex said:

The logical extreme that anyone who thinks there should be a few more classes and subclasses wants broken 3.5 back is what actually needs to go. Expecting people whose job is to design to you know actually design is not unreasonable

Click to expand...

DQDesign said:

quote my posts in which I did that, please.

Click to expand...

Gradine said:

You do understand what "The Emperor's New Clothes" is about right?

Click to expand...