Recent content by Mind of tempest

depends on what we get could just be more spells.

that is a good sword name.

it kind of does it has settings and what is in the rule books which let you play them. look can you explain a justifiable reason for an always evil species?

so they are not made of evil just of a hostile religious sect? look if you want to prove your point you going to have to do better than that as that is what those who disagree with you think.

4e could have merge ranger a rogue and nothing bad would have come of it or at least the backlash would be no worse than what was already there.

look a sword is a tool of killing twinkle is a word that does not work for that function at all.

but arcane archer is a fighter subclass and give them the outlander background and guess what we have a ranger. it lacks a solid hook so cutting it from the line up would work.

the planar dragons much like the planes need to be redone to make them interesting and worth spending time on. but it was named by a drow who are not known for whimsy, blood drinker is a drow's weapons name.

describe what the material evil is? describe pure sociological evil if that would work better? give us a description a definition so we can at least have ground for the topic to discuss. as at the end of the day, it is not about orcs really but can we make a pure evil species?

why it seems so easy to just get rid of it, its points in its favour are things that should be universal it eats an aspect of play worse than a bard and it lacks any archetype other than lone wander of the wilds which is not a class idea but a character idea, why not kill it and let something...

true but they would have to have the mind of a five-year-old, dangers herald would be better and that is not even a cool name.

look my point is that if another class used the same mechanical gimmick as the warlock then the warlock class would lose a lot of its apple and I see no reason to do that at present. You're right in that it would end up similar to other casters no matter what but it is a question of which ones...

sounds like two subclasses one for fighter one for rogue. so it sounds like it could be fused with the rogue with no real loss of playability? look you want anything from the ranger worth building from is its divine sneaky type ness, paladins can't do that properly and we lack a sneaky half...

that would be logically true.

so your complaining that it leaned into the most common party possible fighter, mage, thief and cleric? those roles are in wow because they sort of formed in how parties fight monsters in tabletop and that just got moved to another medium.